Management of Shoulder Instability in Patients with Seizure Disorders

Poor midterm clinical outcomes and a high percentage of unsatisfying results are reported after seizure-related shoulder injuries, especially after posterior proximal humerus fracture-dislocations

BACKGROUND

Treating seizure-related shoulder injuries is challenging, and an evidence-based consensus to guide clinicians is lacking. The aim of this prospective single-center observational clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical results of a cohort of patients undergoing treatment of seizure-related shoulder injuries, to categorize them according to the lesion's characteristics, with special focus on patients with proximal humerus fracture-dislocations (PHFDs), and to define groups at risk of obtaining unsatisfactory results. We hypothesized that patients with a PHFD, considered the worst-case scenario among these injuries, would report worse clinical results in terms of the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (qDASH) as compared to the other patients.

METHODS

Patients referred to a tertiary epilepsy center who have seizure-related shoulder injuries and with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. A quality-of-life assessment instrument (EQ-5D-5L), a district-specific patient-reported outcome measure (qDASH), and a pain assessment tool (visual analog scale [VAS]) were used for the clinical outcome evaluation. Subjective satisfaction and fear of new shoulder injuries was also documented. Categorization and subgroup analysis according to the presence and features of selected specific lesions were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were deemed eligible and 83 were available for follow-up (median age 38 years, 30% females), accounting for a total of 107 injured shoulders. After a median follow-up of 3.9 (1.6-8.2) years, overall moderate clinical results were reported. In addition, 34.1% of the patients reported a VAS score ≥35 mm, indicating moderate to severe pain, and 34.1% a qDASH score ≥40 points, indicating severe disability of an upper limb. These percentages rose to, respectively, 45.5% and 48.5% in the subgroup of patients with PHFDs and to 68.8% and 68.8% in patients experiencing posterior PHFD. Overall, 46.9% of the patients considered themselves unsatisfied with the treatment and 62.5% reported a persistent fear of a new shoulder injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with seizure-related shoulder injuries reported only moderate clinical results at their midterm follow-up. Older age, male sex, and absence or discontinuation of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment were identified as characterizing features of patients with posterior dislocation episodes. In patients with PHFD, a tendency to worse clinical results was observed, with posterior PHFD patients emerging as a definite subgroup at risk of reporting unsatisfying results after treatment.

Latarjet operation carries three times the risk of failure in seizure versus non-seizure recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder joint: outcome of a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation (RASD) in cases of seizure disorders (SDs) total 50%-80% of all SD-associated shoulder instabilities. Based on the extent of bone loss, treatment options include bony and soft-tissue reconstructions, arthroplasty, and arthrodesis. The primary objective of this paper was to review the treatment options for RASD in SDs.

METHODS

Several bibliographic databases were searched for RASD treatment options in SD patients. The demographic outcome measures, the failure rate (defined as the relative risk of recurrence of dislocation postoperation), and the postoperative seizure recurrence rate were recorded.

RESULTS

We pooled 171 cases (187 shoulders) from 11 studies. Of these, one, five, two, two, and one reports studied Bankart's operation with remplissage (27 cases/29 shoulders), the Latarjet procedure (106/118), bone block operation (21/23), arthroplasty (11/11), and arthrodesis (6/6), respectively, in treating SD-associated RASD. The relative risk of failure between SD and non-SD patients was 3.76 (1.3610.38) after the Latarjet operation. The failure rates were 17% and 13% for Bankart's operation with remplissage and the Latarjet procedure in SD patients, respectively, but 0% each for bone block operation, arthroplasty, and arthrodesis. The total rate of seizure recurrence after operation was 33% of the pooled cases.

CONCLUSIONS

SD recurrence in the postoperative period, the size of the bone block, and the muscular attachments to a small coracoid autograft are the determinants of failure among various reconstructive operations in SD-associated RASD. Level of evidence: III.

Arthroscopic suture bridge fixation for acute bony Bankart with anterior glenohumeral instability: a case report and narrative review

Background and Objective

Anterior shoulder dislocations can result in acute glenoid rim fractures that compromise the bony stability of the glenohumeral joint. Adequate fixation of these fractures is required to restore stability, decrease shoulder pain, and facilitate return to activity. The double-row suture bridge is a relatively novel fixation technique, first described in 2009, that accomplishes internal fixation with sufficient stability using an all-arthroscopic technique to restore the glenoid footprint. A 40-year-old female with recurrent anterior shoulder instability in the setting of seizure disorder was found to have a bony Bankart lesion of 25% to 30% with a concomitant superior labral tear. The patient was treated with a double-row bony Bankart bridge and labral repair. At six months follow-up, she has progressed to a full recovery with no recurrence.

Methods

A search was conducted in May 2023 in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL with the search terms bony Bankart, bone Bankart, osseous Bankart, acute, bridge, suture bridge, double row.

Key Content and Findings

Double-row suture bridge repairs result in improvement in shoulder function as determined by ASES (93.5), QuickDASH (4.5), SANE (95.9), and SF-12 (55.6). The overall recurrence rate of anterior instability after a bony Bankart bridge repair is 8%. When examining the return to prior level of function, 81.4% of patients were able to do so with only 7.9% of patients reporting significant modifications to their activity level. In mid-term results, double row suture bridge demonstrates similar outcomes to other all-arthroscopic fixation methods of bony Bankart injuries. Importantly, bony Bankart bridge remains a viable option for critical glenoid lesions over the 20% cutoff used in other all arthroscopic techniques. Biomechanically, the double-row suture bridge offers distinct benefits over its single-row counterpart including increased compression, reduced displacement, and reduced step-off.

Conclusions

Although there is limited data, the studies discussed and the demonstrative case show the potential benefit of all-arthroscopic double-row suture bridge fixation including increased compression, decreased displacement, and a lower complication rate in patients with large bony Bankart lesions traditionally requiring bony augmentation. However, more robust studies are necessary to determine the long-term success of the double-row suture bridge.