Accuracy of Currently Available Methods in Quantifying Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss: Controversy Regarding Gold Standard-A Systematic Review

Accuracy and Consistency of 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Comparable With 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography in Assessing Glenohumeral Instability: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of 3D computed tomography (CT) in evaluating glenoid bone loss (GBL).

METHODS

This review aligned with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were obtained from data inception to August 28, 2023. The search term "glenoid bone loss" was extracted and analyzed via stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 combined with the QUADAS-Comparative to assess the heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1,589 related studies were retrieved, and 10 studies were finally included, of which a total of 143 shoulders were evaluated. The index test in QUADAS-Comparative was low risk in 9 studies. 3D MRI measurements of GBL were primarily best-fit circles (n = 9). In both clinical and cadaveric studies, the mean percentages of GBL measured by 3D MRI were 0.38% to 2.19% and 0.25% to 6.1% when compared with 3D CT and standard reference values, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient agreement greater than 0.9 between GBL percentages measured by 3D CT and 3D MRI. 3D MRI also could accurately measure glenoid width, glenoid height, humeral head width, and height. 3D MRI reconstruction time was similar to that of 3D CT, which was mainly 10 to 15 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

In both clinical and cadaveric studies, compared with 3D CT, 3D MRI is accurate and consistent in assessing glenohumeral bone, especially in measuring GBL, and the reconstruction time of 3D MRI is similar to 3D CT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level Ⅲ, systematic review of Level Ⅱ-Ⅲ studies.

Editorial Commentary: Two-Thirds Glenoid Height Technique Used to Generate a "Perfect Circle" Improves Reliability in Measuring Shoulder Glenoid Bone Loss

When determining surgical options for shoulder stabilization, patient age, lifestyle, and sport activities help inform which procedure to select. Additionally, there is a need for solidifying the accuracy and effectiveness of measuring glenoid bone loss, which can be the critical factor in choosing a soft tissue or bony augmentation procedure. Makovicka et al. found that using two-thirds of the glenoid height to generate a perfect-circle, rather than a "best-fit" circle improved reliability of MRI-based bone loss measurement. Two-thirds height technique employs a more objective measure of glenoid height, producing a perfect circle used to subsequently estimate glenoid bone loss, which is consistently reproducible, and can be performed in most clinical settings. This was supported by the improved intra-class correlation coefficient from the two-thirds height perfect circle over the "best-fit" circle measurement observed in this study.

Reliability of Manual Measurements Versus Semiautomated Software for Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background

The presence of glenoid bone defects is indicative in the choice of treatment for patients with anterior shoulder instability. In contrast to traditional linear- and area-based measurements, techniques such as the consideration of glenoid concavity have been proposed and validated.

Purpose

To compare the reliability of linear (1-dimensional [1D]), area (2-dimensional [2D]), and concavity (3-dimensional [3D]) measurements to quantify glenoid bone loss performed manually and to analyze how automated measurements affect reliability.

Study Design

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Computed tomography images of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with differently sized glenoid defects were evaluated independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons manually using conventional software (OsiriX; Pixmeo) as well as automatically with a dedicated prototype software program (ImFusion Suite; ImFusion). Parameters obtained included 1D (defect diameter, best-fit circle diameter), 2D (defect area, best-fit circle area), and 3D (bony shoulder stability ratio) measurements. Mean values and reliability as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) were compared between the manual and automated measurements.

Results

When manually obtained, the measurements showed almost perfect agreement for 1D parameters (ICC = 0.83), substantial agreement for 2D parameters (ICC = 0.79), and moderate agreement for the 3D parameter (ICC = 0.48). When measurements were aided by automated software, the agreement between raters was almost perfect for all parameters (ICC = 0.90 for 1D, 2D, and 3D). There was a significant difference in mean values between manually versus automatically obtained measurements for 1D, 2D, and 3D parameters (P < .001 for all).

Conclusion

While more advanced measurement techniques that take glenoid concavity into account are more accurate in determining the biomechanical relevance of glenoid bone loss, our study showed that the reliability of manually performed, more complex measurements was moderate.

Surgical Intervention Following a First Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Worthy of Consideration

Up to 60% of patients experience recurrence after a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD), which is often defined as having experienced either dislocation or subluxation. Thus surgical intervention after FTASD is worthy of consideration and is guided by the number of patients who need to receive surgical intervention to prevent 1 redislocation (i.e., number needed to treat), (subjective) health benefit, complication risk, and costs. Operative intervention through arthroscopic stabilization can be successful in reducing recurrence risk in FTASD, as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, there is a large "gray area" for the indication of arthroscopic stabilization, and it is therefore heavily debated which patients should receive operative treatment. Previous trials showed widely varying redislocation rates in both the intervention and control group, meta-analysis shows 2% to 19% after operative and 20% to 75% after nonoperative treatment, and redislocation rates may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. The literature is quite heterogeneous, and a major confounder is time to follow-up. Furthermore, there is insufficient standardization of reporting of outcomes and no consensus on definition of risk factors. As a result, surgery is a reasonable intervention for FTASD patients, but in which patients it best prevents redislocation requires additional refinement.

Current Concepts in the Measurement of Glenohumeral Bone Loss

PURPOSE

The extent of glenohumeral bone loss seen in anterior shoulder dislocations plays a major role in guiding surgical management of these patients. The need for accurate and reliable preoperative assessment of bone loss on imaging studies is therefore of paramount importance to orthopedic surgeons. This article will focus on the tools that are available to clinicians for quantifying glenoid bone loss with a focus on emerging trends and research in order to describe current practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence supports the use of 3D CT as the most optimal method for quantifying bone loss on the glenoid and humerus. New trends in the use of 3D and ZTE MRI represent exciting alternatives to CT imaging, although they are not widely used and require further investigation. Contemporary thinking surrounding the glenoid track concept and the symbiotic relationship between glenoid and humeral bone loss on shoulder stability has transformed our understanding of these lesions and has inspired a new focus of study for radiologists and orthopedist alike. Although a number of different advanced imaging modalities are utilized to detect and quantify glenohumeral bone loss in practice, the current literature supports 3D CT imaging to provide the most reliable and accurate assessments. The emergence of the glenoid track concept for glenoid and humeral head bone loss has inspired a new area of study for researchers that presents exciting opportunities for the development of a deeper understanding of glenohumeral instability in the future. Ultimately, however, the heterogeneity of literature, which speaks to the diverse practices that exist across the world, limits any firm conclusions from being drawn.

CT methods for measuring glenoid bone loss are inaccurate, and not reproducible or interchangeable

Aims

Glenoid bone loss is a significant problem in the management of shoulder instability. The threshold at which the bone loss is considered "critical" requiring bony reconstruction has steadily dropped and is now approximately 15%. This necessitates accurate measurement in order that the correct operation is performed. CT scanning is the most commonly used modality and there are a number of techniques described to measure the bone loss however few have been validated. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used techniques for measuring glenoid bone loss on CT.

Methods

Anatomically accurate models with known glenoid diameter and degree of bone loss were used to determine the mathematical and statistical accuracy of six of the most commonly described techniques (relative diameter, linear ipsilateral circle of best fit (COBF), linear contralateral COBF, Pico, Sugaya, and circle line methods). The models were prepared at 13.8%, 17.6%, and 22.9% bone loss. Sequential CT scans were taken and randomized. Blinded reviewers made repeated measurements using the different techniques with a threshold for theoretical bone grafting set at 15%.

Results

At 13.8%, only the Pico technique measured under the threshold. At 17.6% and 22.9% bone loss all techniques measured above the threshold. The Pico technique was 97.1% accurate, but had a high false-negative rate and poor sensitivity underestimating the need for grafting. The Sugaya technique had 100% specificity but 25% of the measurements were incorrectly above the threshold. A contralateral COBF underestimates the area by 16% and the diameter by 5 to 7%.

Conclusion

No one method stands out as being truly accurate and clinicians need to be aware of the limitations of their chosen technique. They are not interchangeable, and caution must be used when reading the literature as comparisons are not reliable.

Disagreement Between the Accepted Best-Fit Circle Method to Calculate Bone Loss Between Injured and Uninjured Shoulders

BACKGROUND

No study has evaluated whether best-fit circles based on glenoids with defects accurately represent normal inferior glenoids before injury.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the best-fit circles on the affected side with a glenoid defect can accurately represent native glenoids before injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 58 patients with unilateral recurrent anterior shoulder instability. First, we compared the diameter of best-fit circles based on affected and unaffected glenoids. Glenoid defect sizes based on each best-fit circle were then calculated and compared. Second, we created serial virtual glenoid defects (10%, 15%, 20%, 25%) on unaffected glenoids and compared diameters of best-fit circles on the glenoids before and after virtual defects. We also analyzed and compared the size of virtual and calculated glenoid defects. Bland-Altman plots and intraclass coefficients (ICCs) were used to compare and analyze agreement of measurements. After categorization of glenoid defects based on clinical cutoff values, Cohen κ and percentage agreement were calculated.

RESULTS

The diameter of 55.2% (32/58) of best-fit circles from affected glenoids over- or underestimated the diameter on the unaffected side by >5%. In 28 of the 32 patients, the diameter of the affected side circle was overestimated. Consequently, 41.4% (24/58) of glenoid defects were over- or underestimated by >5%. In 19 of the 24 patients, the glenoid defect from the affected side was >5% larger. ICCs between sides for best-fit circle diameters and defect sizes were 0.632 and 0.800, respectively. Agreement of glenoid defect size between sides was 58.6% (34/58) overall, but when the defect was ≥10%, agreement decreased to 32.3% (10/31). Among 232 glenoids with virtual defects created from 58 normal glenoids, the diameter of 31.0% (72/232) of best-fit circles and the size of 11.6% (27/232) of defects were over- or underestimated by >5%.

CONCLUSION

When assessing glenoid defects in anterior shoulder instability, best-fit circles based on affected glenoids do not always represent the native glenoid and may thus lead to inaccurate circle sizes and defect estimates.

Calculating glenoid bone loss based on glenoid height using ipsilateral three-dimensional computed tomography

PURPOSE

To investigate the relationship between glenoid width and other morphologic parameters using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) images of native shoulders, and to create a new measurement tool to assess glenoid defects in a Canadian population with established anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Forty-three glenoid CT scans were analyzed for patients who underwent contralateral shoulder glenoid reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability between 2012 and 2020. Demographic data were obtained including age, gender and BMI. The subjects were excluded if they had a prior history of ipsilateral shoulder instability, shoulder fractures, or bone tumors. The following glenoid parameters were measured: width (W), height (H), anteroposterior (AP) depth, superior-inferior (SI) depth and version. The shape of the glenoid was also classified into pear, inverted comma or oval.

RESULTS

There were 35 male and 8 females with a mean age of 34.5 ± 12.9 years. The glenoid width was strongly correlated with the height (R² = 0.9) and a regression model equation was obtained: W (mm) = 2.5 + 0.7*H (mm). There was also strong correlation with gender (P < 0.001), glenoid shape (P = 0.030), AP and SI depths (P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). Male gender was associated with higher measurement values for all parameters. The most common glenoid shapes were the pear (46.5%) and oval morphotypes (39.6%) for the whole study group.

CONCLUSION

The native glenoid width can be estimated based on glenoid height using ipsilateral 3D CT. This may help with preoperative planning and surgical decision-making for patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder dislocation: a multicentric study to assess the most reliable imaging method

PURPOSE

The aim of this multicentric study was to assess which imaging method has the best inter-reader agreement for glenoid bone loss quantification in anterior shoulder instability. A further aim was to calculate the inter-method agreement comparing bilateral CT with unilateral CT and MR arthrography (MRA) with CT measurements. Finally, calculations were carried out to find the least time-consuming method.

METHOD

A retrospective evaluation was performed by 9 readers (or pairs of readers) on a consecutive series of 110 patients with MRA and bilateral shoulder CT. Each reader was asked to calculate the glenoid bone loss of all patients using the following methods: best fit circle area on both MRA and CT images, maximum transverse glenoid width on MRA and CT, CT PICO technique, ratio of the maximum glenoid width to height on MRA and CT, and length of flattening of the anterior glenoid curvature on MRA and CT. Using Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC), the following agreement values were calculated: the inter-reader for each method, the inter-method for MRA with CT quantifications and the inter-method for CT best-fit circle area and CT PICO. Statistical analysis was carried out to compare the time employed by the readers for each method.

RESULTS

Inter-reader agreement PCC mean values were the following: 0.70 for MRA and 0.77 for CT using best fit circle diameter, 0.68 for MRA and 0.72 for CT using best fit circle area, 0.75 for CT PICO, 0.64 for MRA and 0.62 for CT anterior straight line and 0.49 for MRA and 0.43 for CT using length-to-width ratio. CT-MRA inter-modality PCC mean values were 0.9 for best fit circle diameter, 0.9 for best fit circle area, 0.62 for anterior straight line and 0.94 for length-to-width methods. PCC mean value comparing unilateral CT with PICO CT methods was 0.8. MRA best fit circle area method was significantly faster than the same method performed on CT (p = 0.031), while no significant difference was seen between CT and MRA for remaining measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

CT PICO is the most reliable imaging method, but both CT and MRA can be reliably used to assess glenoid bone loss. Best fit circle area CT and MRA methods are valuable alternative measurement techniques.

Early Treatment of Shoulder Pathology Is Necessary but Not Enough Is Being Performed

Delayed treatment of shoulder instability results in bone loss requiring more-complicated surgery, in turn resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Similarly, delayed treatment of repairable rotator cuff tears results in irreparable tears requiring more-complicated surgery and resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Delayed treatment of shoulder pathology is a problem. Solutions include education and research investigation.

Glenoid Bone Loss Determination: Validity and Reliability of the Constellation Technique Versus the Sagittal Best Fit Circle Technique

OBJECTIVE

To propose a new method for glenoid bone loss measurement, the constellation technique (CST); determine its reliability and accuracy; and compare the validity of CST with that of the conventional technique (CVT) and standard measurements for ratio calculation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty shoulders with intact glenoids and no glenohumeral instability and arthritis underwent CT scans. Simulated osteotomies were conducted on the 3D models of glenoids at two cutting locations, expressed as clock face times (2:30-4:20; 1:30-5:00). Two experienced surgeons compared three methods for glenoid bone loss measurement; CVT (best-fit circle), CST ('5S' steps), and standard measurement. Eight undergraduates remeasured five randomly chosen shoulders with moderate to severe bone loss. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for raters.

RESULTS

With a defect range between 2:30 and 4:20, all 60 glenoids demonstrated minimal bone loss (< 15%); while between 1:30 and 5:00, 42 shoulders were with moderate bone loss (15-20%), and 18 shoulders with severe bone loss (≥ 20%). For experienced raters, no significant differences were noted between protocos for all categories of bone loss (p ≥ 0.051), with good inter- and intraobserver reliability indicated by ICC. For novice raters, post hoc Tukey analysis found that CST was more accurate in one patient with a standard mean bone loss of 23.2% ± 1.9% compared with CVT.

CONCLUSION

The CST turned the key step of glenoid defect evaluation from deciding an en face view to determining the glenoid inferior rim. The protocol is simple, accurate, and reproducible, especially for novice raters.

CT estimation of glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability

Aims

Recurrent dislocation is both a cause and consequence of glenoid bone loss, and the extent of the bony defect is an indicator guiding operative intervention. Literature suggests that loss greater than 25% requires glenoid reconstruction. Measuring bone loss is controversial; studies use different methods to determine this, with no clear evidence of reproducibility. A systematic review was performed to identify existing CT-based methods of quantifying glenoid bone loss and establish their reliability and reproducibility

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of conventional and grey literature was performed.

Results

A total of 25 studies were initially eligible. Following screening, nine papers were included for review. Main themes identified compared 2D and 3D imaging, as well as linear- compared with area-based techniques. Heterogenous data were acquired, and therefore no meta-analysis was performed.

Conclusion

No ideal CT-based method is demonstrated in the current literature, however evidence suggests that surface area methods are more reproducible and lead to fewer over-estimations of bone loss, provided the views used are standardized. A prospective imaging trial is required to provide a more definitive answer to this research question. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):114–122.

Reporting of glenoid bone loss measurement in clinical studies and the need for standardization : a systematic review

AIMS

The amount of glenoid bone loss is an important factor in deciding between soft-tissue and bony reconstruction when managing anterior shoulder instability. Accurate and reproducible measurement of glenoid bone loss is therefore vital in evaluation of shoulder instability and recommending specific treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the range methods and measurement techniques employed in clinical studies treating glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was undertaken to cover a ten-year period from February 2011 to February 2021. We identified clinical studies that incorporated bone loss assessment in the methodology as part of the decision-making in the management of patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were used.

RESULTS

A total of 5,430 articles were identified from the initial search, of which 82 studies met the final inclusion criteria. A variety of imaging methods were used: three studies did not specify which modality was used, and a further 13 used CT or MRI interchangeably. There was considerable heterogeneity among the studies that specified the technique used to quantify glenoid bone loss. A large proportion of the studies did not specify the technique used.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has identified significant heterogeneity in both the imaging modality and method used to measure glenoid bone loss. The recommendation is that as a minimum for publication, authors should be required to reference the specific measurement technique used. Without this simple standardization, it is impossible to determine whether any published paper should influence clinical practice or should be dismissed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):12-18.

Evaluation and Management of Glenohumeral Instability With Associated Bone Loss: An Expert Consensus Statement Using the Modified Delphi Technique

PURPOSE

To establish an international expert consensus, using the modified Delphi technique, on the evaluation and management of glenohumeral instability with associated bone loss.

METHODS

A working group of 6 individuals generated a list of statements related to history and physical examination, imaging and specialized diagnostic tests, bone loss quantification and classification, treatment outcomes and complications, and rehabilitation for the management of glenohumeral instability associated with bone loss to form the basis of an initial survey for rating by a group of experts. The expert group (composed of 22 high-volume glenohumeral instability experts) was surveyed on 3 occasions to establish a consensus on the statements. Items with over 70% agreement and less than 10% disagreement achieved consensus.

RESULTS

After a total of 3 rounds, 31 statements achieved consensus. Eighty-six percent of the experts agreed that a history of multiple dislocations and failed soft-tissue surgery should raise suspicion about the possibility of an associated bone deficit. Ninety-five percent of the experts agreed that 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) is the most accurate diagnostic method to evaluate and quantify bone loss. Eighty-six percent of the experts agreed that any of the available methods to measure glenoid bone deficiency is adequate; however, 91% of the experts thought that an en face view of the glenoid using 3D CT provides the most accurate method. Ninety-five percent of the experts agreed that Hill-Sachs lesions are poorly quantified and classified by current imaging systems. Ninety percent of the experts agreed that in cases with a glenoid bone deficit greater than 20%, glenoid bone graft reconstruction should be performed and any of the available options is valid. There was no consensus among experts on how Hill-Sachs injuries should be managed or on how postoperative rehabilitation should be carried out.

CONCLUSIONS

The essential statements on which the experts reached consensus included the following: A history of multiple dislocations and failed soft-tissue surgery should make surgeons consider the possibility of an associated bone deficit. Three-dimensional CT is the most accurate diagnostic method to evaluate and quantify bone loss. Although any of the available methods to measure glenoid bone deficiency is adequate, an en face view of the glenoid using 3D CT provides the most accurate method. Hill-Sachs lesions are poorly quantified and classified by current imaging systems. Finally, in cases with a glenoid bone deficit greater than 20%, glenoid bone graft reconstruction should be performed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, consensus statement.

Traditional versus congruent-arc Latarjet anatomic and biomechanical perspective

The congruent-arc Latarjet (CAL) allows reconstruction of a greater percentage of glenoid bone deficit because the inferior surface of the coracoid is wider than the lateral edge of the coracoid used with the traditional Latarjet (TL).

Biomechanical studies have shown higher initial fixation strength between the graft and the glenoid with the TL.

In the TL, the undersurface of the coracoid, which is wider than the medial edge used with the CAL, remains in contact with the anterior edge of the glenoid, increasing the contact surface between both bones and thus facilitating bone consolidation.

The shorter bone distance around the screw with the CAL is potentially less tolerant of screw-positioning error compared to the TL. Moreover, the wall of the screw tunnel is potentially more likely to fracture with the CAL due to the minimal space between the screw and the graft wall.

CAL may be very difficult to perform in patients with very small coracoids such as small women or skeletally immature patients.

Radius of curvature of the inferior face of the coracoid graft (used with the CAL) is similar to that of the native glenoid. This may potentially decrease contact pressure across the glenohumeral joint, avoiding degenerative changes in the long term.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:280-287. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200074

Glenoid concavity has a higher impact on shoulder stability than the size of a bony defect

PURPOSE

Surgical treatment of shoulder instability caused by anterior glenoid bone loss is based on a critical threshold of the defect size. Recent studies indicate that the glenoid concavity is essential for glenohumeral stability. However, biomechanical proof of this principle is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether glenoid concavity allows a more precise assessment of glenohumeral stability than the defect size alone.

METHODS

The stability ratio (SR) is a biomechanical estimate of glenohumeral stability. It is defined as the maximum dislocating force the joint can resist related to a medial compression force. This ratio was determined for 17 human cadaveric glenoids in a robotic test setup depending on osteochondral concavity and anterior defect size. Bony defects were created gradually, and a 3D measuring arm was used for morphometric measurements. The influence of defect size and concavity on the SR was examined using linear models. In addition, the morphometrical-based bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) was evaluated to prove its suitability for estimation of glenohumeral stability independent of defect size.

RESULTS

Glenoid concavity is a significant predictor for the SR, while the defect size provides minor informative value. The linear model featured a high goodness of fit with a determination coefficient of R² = 0.98, indicating that 98% of the SR is predictable by concavity and defect size. The low mean squared error (MSE) of 4.2% proved a precise estimation of the SR. Defect size as an exclusive predictor in the linear model reduced R² to 0.9 and increased the MSE to 25.7%. Furthermore, the loss of SR with increasing defect size was shown to be significantly dependent on the initial concavity. The BSSR as a single predictor for glenohumeral stability led to highest precision with MSE = 3.4%.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid concavity is a crucial factor for the SR. Independent of the defect size, the computable BSSR is a precise biomechanical estimate of the measured SR. The inclusion of glenoid concavity has the potential to influence clinical decision-making for an improved and personalised treatment of glenohumeral instability with anterior glenoid bone loss.

Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

PURPOSE

Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21-30 years.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Editorial Commentary: Glenoid Bone Loss Measurements in Shoulder Instability-Precise but Not Accurate

Glenoid defects are important to consider when choosing the surgical stabilization technique in shoulder instability patients. Several measurement methods to determine the extent of glenoid bone loss have been proposed and their reliability or precision proved. However, it must be considered that these defect extent measurements are only surrogate parameters trying to express the loss of biomechanical stability generated by a glenoid defect, which in fact they do not do accurately. Current defect measurement techniques are either linear based (1-dimensional) or area based (2-dimensional) but do not take into account the 3-dimensional shape of the glenoid concavity, which creates stability by means of the concavity-compression effect. Furthermore, none of the current measurement methods take into account the native glenoid concavity shape, which significantly differs between patients and therefore also affects the biomechanical consequence a glenoid defect generates. To improve the accuracy of current glenoid defect measurement techniques in expressing the loss of biomechanical stability generated by a glenoid defect, measurements should take into account the concave shape of the glenoid (3-dimensional measurements) and account for the baseline shape of the native glenoid (4-dimensional measurements).