Similar scapular morphology in patients with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability

SECEC Didier Patte Prize 2023: the ABC classification of posterior shoulder instability

BACKGROUND

The ABC classification has recently been proposed as a comprehensive classification system for posterior shoulder instability (PSI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the comprehensiveness as well as inter-rater and intrarater reliability of the ABC classification.

METHODS

All consecutive patients presenting with unidirectional PSI from June 2019 to June 2021 were included in a prospective study. No patients were excluded, leaving a consecutive series of 100 cases of PSI in 91 patients. All recorded clinical and imaging data were used to create anonymized clinical case vignettes, which were evaluated twice according to the ABC classification at the end of the recruitment period in random sequential order by 4 independent raters (2 experienced shoulder surgeons and 2 orthopedic residents) to analyze the comprehensiveness as well as inter-rater and intrarater reliability of the ABC classification for PSI and to describe differences in characteristics among subtypes. Group A was defined as a first-time singular PSI event <3 months in the past regardless of etiology and is further subdivided into type 1 and type 2 depending on the occurrence of a subluxation (A1) or dislocation (A2). Group B comprises recurrent dynamic PSI regardless of time since onset and is further subdivided by the cause of instability into functional (B1) and structural (B2) dynamic PSI. Group C includes chronic static PSI with posterior humeral decentering that can be either constitutional (C1) or acquired (C2).

RESULTS

None of the cases was deemed unsuitable to be classified based on the proposed system by the observers. After consensus agreement between the 2 expert raters, 16 cases were attributed to group A (8 type A1 and 8 type A2); 64, to group B (33 type B1 and 31 type B2); and 20, to group C (11 type C1 and 9 type C2). The expert raters agreed on the classification subtypes in 99% and 96% of the cases during the first rating and second rating, respectively (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.998 and 0.99, respectively). The intraobserver reliability was excellent for both raters. The beginners reached the same conclusion as the consensus agreement in 94% of the cases (ICC, 0.99) and 89% of the cases (ICC, 0.97) during the first round and 94% each (ICC, 0.97) during the second round. The intraobserver reliability was excellent for both beginners. Overall, discrepancies between raters were found between groups B1 and B2 (n = 14), groups B2 and C2 (n = 4), groups B1 and C1 (n = 1), and groups A1 and B2 (n = 1). In general, each subtype showed distinctive clinical and imaging characteristics that facilitated the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

The presented ABC classification for PSI is a comprehensive classification with a high reliability and reproducibility. However, a gradual transition and potential progression between the subtypes of PSI must be considered. The reliable distinction between different subtypes of PSI based on etiology and pathomechanism provides a standardized basis for future investigations on treatment recommendations.

Diagnosis and treatment of posterior shoulder instability based on the ABC classification

Posterior shoulder instability (PSI) is less common than anterior shoulder instability, accounting for 2-12% of total shoulder instability cases. However, a much higher frequency of PSI has been recently indicated, suggesting that PSI accounts for up to 24% of all young and active patients who are surgically treated for shoulder instability. This differentiation might be explained due to the frequent misinterpretation of vague symptoms, as PSI does not necessarily present as a recurrent posterior instability event, but often also as mere shoulder pain during exertion, limited range of motion, or even as yet asymptomatic concomitant finding. In order to optimize current treatment, it is crucial to identify the various clinical presentations and often unspecific symptoms of PSI, ascertain the causal instability mechanism, and accurately diagnose the subgroup of PSI. This review should guide the reader to correctly identify PSI, providing diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies.

Current Evidence Regarding Shoulder Instability in the Paediatric and Adolescent Population

Paediatric and adolescent shoulder instability is caused by a unique combination of traumatic factors, ligamentous laxity, and pattern of muscle contractility. The multifactorial nature of its aetiology makes interpretation of the literature difficult as nomenclature is also highly variable. The purpose of this review is to summarize the existing literature and shed light on the nuances of paediatric and adolescent shoulder instability. The epidemiology, clinical features, imaging, and management of all forms of paediatric shoulder instability are presented. The main findings of this review are that structural abnormalities following a dislocation are uncommon in pre-pubertal paediatric patients. Young post-pubertal adolescents are at the highest risk of failure of non-operative management in the setting of traumatic instability with structural abnormality, and early stabilisation should be considered for these patients. Remplissage and the Latarjet procedure are safe treatment options for adolescents at high risk of recurrence, but the side-effect profile should be carefully considered. Patients who suffer from instability due to generalized ligamentous laxity benefit from a structured, long-term physiotherapy regimen, with surgery in the form of arthroscopic plication as a viable last resort. Those who suffer from a predominantly muscle patterning pathology do not benefit from surgery and require focus on regaining neuromuscular control.

Rotator Cuff Tears to Shoulder Instability: The Relationship Between Acromial Morphology and Shoulder Pathology

» The acromion is a well-studied region of the scapula that has demonstrated substantial relationships to various shoulder pathologies.» Abnormal acromial morphology is associated with rotator cuff pathology, and our understanding of this risk factor inspired acromioplasty as an adjunctive treatment for rotator cuff tears.» The acromion is linked closely to shoulder kinematics and biomechanics, as it serves as the origin for the deltoid muscle.» In degenerative shoulder disease, eccentric glenohumeral osteoarthritis has been associated with a higher, flatter acromial roof.» Increasing literature is emerging connecting morphology of the acromion with shoulder instability.

Acromion morphology is associated with glenoid bone loss in posterior glenohumeral instability

BACKGROUND

The acromion morphology in a shoulder with posterior instability differs from that of a shoulder without glenohumeral instability. Specifically, the acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt, greater posterior acromial height, and less posterior coverage is associated with posterior instability. However, the association between acromion morphology and glenoid bone loss (GBL) in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability has not previously been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether acromial morphology influences the extent or pattern of posterior GBL in a cohort of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study identified 89 shoulders with unidirectional posterior glenohumeral instability. Total area GBL was measured using the best-fit circle method on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Shoulders were divided into 3 groups: (1) no GBL (n = 30), (2) GBL 0%-13.5% (n = 45), or (3) GBL ≥13.5% (n = 14). Acromion measurements were performed on MRI and included acromial tilt, posterior acromial height, anterior acromial coverage, and posterior acromial coverage.

RESULTS

Patients without GBL had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5° ± 1.4°) compared with those with 0%-13.5% GBL (64.3° ± 1.5°) or GBL ≥13.5% (67.7° ± 1.8°) (P = .004). Patients without GBL also had greater posterior coverage (65.4° ± 1.7°) compared with those with GBL (60.3° ± 1.4°) (P = .015). Posterior acromion height was not significantly different among groups.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that an acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt and less posterior coverage is associated with GBL in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability. This is important to consider as posterior GBL has been identified as a risk factor for failure of posterior soft tissue-stabilizing procedures.

Posterior stability of the shoulder depends on acromial anatomy: a biomechanical study of 3D surface models

PURPOSE

Primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis is commonly associated with static posterior subluxation of the humeral head. Scapulae with static/dynamic posterior instability feature a superiorly and horizontally oriented acromion. We investigated whether the acromion acts as a restraint to posterior humeral translation.

METHODS

Five three-dimensional (3D) printed scapula models were biomechanically tested. A statistical shape mean model (SSMM) of the normal scapula of 40 asymptomatic shoulders was fabricated. Next, a SSMM of scapular anatomy associated with posterior subluxation was generated using data of 20 scapulae ("B1"). This model was then used to generate three models of surgical correction: glenoid version, acromial orientation, and acromial and glenoid orientation. With the joint axially loaded (100N) and the humerus stabilized, an anterior translation force was applied to the scapula in 35°, 60° and 75° of glenohumeral flexion. Translation (mm) was measured.

RESULTS

In the normal scapula, the humerus translates significantly less to contact with the acromion compared to all other configurations (p < .000 for all comparisons; i.e. 35°: "normal" 8,1 mm (± 0,0) versus "B1" 11,9 mm (± 0,0) versus "B1 Acromion Correction" 12,2 mm (± 0,2) versus "B1 Glenoid Correction" 13,3 mm (± 0,1)). Restoration of normal translation was only achieved with correction of glenoid and acromial anatomy (i.e. 75°: "normal" 11 mm (± 0,8) versus "B1 Acromion Correction" 17,5 mm (± 0,1) versus "B1 Glenoid Correction" 19,7 mm (± 1,3) versus "B1 Glenoid + Acromion Correction" 11,5 mm (± 1,1)).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistence or recurrence of static/dynamic posterior instability after correction of glenoid version alone may be related to incomplete restoration of the intrinsic stability that is conferred by a normal acromial anatomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

biomechanical study.

Correction of Static Posterior Shoulder Subluxation by Restoring Normal Scapular Anatomy Using Acromion and Glenoid Osteotomies: A Case Report

CASE

A 40-year-old man presented with progressive shoulder pain, associated with static posterior subluxation and mild eccentric glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with a mean statistical shape model of a normal shoulder, the patient's acromion was abnormally high and horizontal, and the glenoid abnormally inclined inferiorly and minimally retroverted. Restoration of normal scapular anatomy using 3-dimensional planned acromial and glenoid osteotomies led to recentering of the joint and full shoulder function up to 24 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The correction of associated acromial and glenoid malformation can revert early static posterior subluxation of the shoulder. Whether successful recentering prevents progression of osteoarthritis remains to be established.

Computer-assisted analysis of functional internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: implications for component choice and orientation

PURPOSE

Functional internal rotation (IR) is a combination of extension and IR. It is clinically often limited after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) either due to loss of extension or IR in extension. It was the purpose of this study to determine the ideal in-vitro combination of glenoid and humeral components to achieve impingement-free functional IR.

METHODS

RTSA components were virtually implanted into a normal scapula (previously established with a statistical shape model) and into a corresponding humerus using a computer planning program (CASPA). Baseline glenoid configuration consisted of a 28 mm baseplate placed flush with the posteroinferior glenoid rim, a baseplate inclination angle of 96° (relative to the supraspinatus fossa) and a 36 mm standard glenosphere. Baseline humeral configuration consisted of a 12 mm humeral stem, a metaphysis with a neck shaft angle (NSA) of 155° (+ 6 mm medial offset), anatomic torsion of -20° and a symmetric PE inlay (36mmx0mm). Additional configurations with different humeral torsion (-20°, + 10°), NSA (135°, 145°, 155°), baseplate position, diameter, lateralization and inclination were tested. Glenohumeral extension of 5, 10, 20, and 40° was performed first, followed by IR of 20, 40, and 60° with the arm in extension of 40°-the value previously identified as necessary for satisfactory clinical functional IR. The different component combinations were taken through simulated ROM and the impingement volume (mm³) was recorded. Furthermore, the occurrence of impingement was read out in 5° motion increments.

RESULTS

In all cases where impingement occurred, it occurred between the PE inlay and the posterior glenoid rim. Only in 11 of 36 combinations full functional IR was possible without impingement. Anterosuperior baseplate positioning showed the highest impingement volume with every combination of NSA and torsion. A posteroinferiorly positioned 26 mm baseplate resulting in an additional 2 mm of inferior overhang as well as 6 mm baseplate lateralization offered the best impingement-free functional IR (5/6 combinations without impingement). Low impingement potential resulted from a combination of NSA 135° and + 10° torsion (4/6 combinations without impingement), followed by NSA 135° and -20° torsion (3/6 combinations without impingement) regardless of glenoid setup.

CONCLUSION

The largest impingement-free functional IRs resulted from combining a posteroinferior baseplate position, a greater inferior glenosphere overhang, 90° of baseplate inclination angle, 6 mm glenosphere lateralization with respect to baseline setup, a lower NSA and antetorsion of the humeral component. Surgeons can employ and combine these implant configurations to achieve and improve functional IR when planning and performing RTSA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Basic Science Study, Biomechanics.

Arthroscopic Posterior Articular Coverage and Shift (PACS) Procedure for Treatment of Preosteoarthritic Constitutional Static Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type C1)

BACKGROUND

Different joint-preserving techniques for treatment of preosteoarthritic, constitutional static (type C1) posterior shoulder instability (PSI) have been proposed, including posterior glenoid open wedge osteotomy and bone graft augmentation. However, the techniques are demanding, the reported complication and reoperation rates are high, and posterior decentering cannot reliably be reversed.

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical and radiological longitudinal outcomes of patients with type C1 PSI after arthroscopic posterior articular coverage and shift (PACS) surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database with longitudinal follow-up including 14 shoulders in 13 patients who underwent an arthroscopic PACS procedure for symptomatic preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior instability (type C1) with previous failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were clinically evaluated before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively in terms of satisfaction and pain levels as well as standardized physical examination, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score, Constant score, and Rowe score. Preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained in all patients. A paired 2-sample t test was used to compare changes in continuous variable parameters over time. Correlation analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

All outcome scores and the pain level improved significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively, and the improvement was sustained over the follow-up period of 2 years (pain level, 6.4 preoperatively vs 3.3 at 2 years, P < .001; SSV, 40 vs 70, P = .001; WOSI, 33 vs 56, P = .001; Constant, 70 vs 79, P = .049; Rowe, 52 vs 76, P < .001). The mean glenohumeral and scapulohumeral subluxation indices were significantly lower in the early postoperative period compared with preoperative measurements (glenohumeral, 52% ± 6% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .02; scapulohumeral, 70% ± 8%; vs 77% ± 9%, P = .002, respectively); however, they returned to baseline values at follow-up (57% ± 7% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .7; 75% ± 6% vs 77% ± 9%, P = .4, respectively). A high scapulohumeral subluxation index, excessive glenoid retroversion, and increased posterior positioning of the humeral head in relation to scapular blade axis and older age were correlated with worse clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Over the follow-up period of 2 years, the PACS procedure significantly improved outcome scores in patients who had preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior shoulder instability, especially in younger patients with less severe glenoid retroversion and posterior decentering of the humeral head. However, similar to other techniques, the PACS procedure needs to be considered a symptomatic therapy that does not reverse the underlying cause or stop the progressive pathology.

Association of the Posterior Acromion Extension with Glenoid Retroversion: A CT Study in Normal and Osteoarthritic Shoulders

Posterior eccentric glenoid wear is associated with higher complication rates after shoulder arthroplasty. The recently reported association between the acromion shape and glenoid retroversion in both normal and osteoarthritic shoulders remains controversial. The three-dimensional coordinates of the angulus acromialis (AA) and acromioclavicular joint were examined in the scapular coordinate system. Four acromion angles were defined from these two acromion landmarks: the acromion posterior angle (APA), acromion tilt angle (ATA), acromion length angle (ALA), and acromion axial tilt angle (AXA). Shoulder computed tomography scans of 112 normal scapulae and 125 patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis were analyzed with simple and stepwise multiple linear regressions between all morphological acromion parameters and glenoid retroversion. In normal scapulae, the glenoid retroversion angle was most strongly correlated with the posterior extension of the AA (R² = 0.48, p < 0.0001), which can be conveniently characterized by the APA. Combining the APA with the ALA and ATA helped slightly improve the correlation (R² = 0.55, p < 0.0001), but adding the AXA did not. In osteoarthritic scapulae, a critical APA > 15 degrees was found to best identify glenoids with a critical retroversion angle > 8 degrees. The APA is more strongly associated with the glenoid retroversion angle in normal than primary osteoarthritic scapulae.

The Cartilage Wear Index: A new evaluation method to improve patient selection in surgical treatment of recurrent posterior glenohumeral instability

Background

The purpose of this study was to validate glenoid cartilage lesions as a negative prognostic factor and to define a new image-based preoperative evaluation method to identify surgical candidates for arthroscopic labral refixation with suture anchors in posterior shoulder instability.

Methods

Twenty-six patients who underwent arthroscopic posterior labral repair for shoulder instability were evaluated. Only patients with structural dynamic posterior instability were included. We evaluated on preoperative magnetic resonance arthrogram: glenoid version, humeral head subluxation, type of capsular insertion, and the cartilage lesions using the new Cartilage Wear Index (CWI). Two subgroups were analyzed with regard to the preoperative CWI and shoulder outcome scores: Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI).

Results

The median age at operation was 28 (interquartile range = 21-33) years. Median overall postoperative outcome assessment demonstrated a SANE of 90 and a WOSI of 385. The median CWI was 1.02. Subgroup analysis revealed worse median WOSI and SANE scores in patients with a CWI >1.02 and a strong correlation between a high preoperative CWI and a higher postoperative WOSI score (R = 0.58; P = .038).

Conclusion

The CWI can be useful to identify patients who might obtain better outcomes when treated with arthroscopic labral repair in posterior shoulder instability.

Posterior Open-wedge Osteotomy and Glenoid Concavity Reconstruction Using an Implant-free, J-shaped Iliac Crest Bone Graft in Atraumatic Posterior Instability with Pathologic Glenoid Retroversion and Dysplasia: A Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND

Atraumatic posterior shoulder instability in patients with pathologic glenoid retroversion and dysplasia is an unsolved problem in shoulder surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a preliminary study of a small group of patients with atraumatic posterior shoulder instability associated with glenoid retroversion ≥ 15° and glenoid dysplasia who underwent posterior open-wedge osteotomy and glenoid concavity reconstruction using an implant-free, J-shaped iliac crest bone graft, we asked: (1) What proportion of the patients had persistent apprehension? (2) What were the improvements in patient-reported shoulder scores? (3) What were the radiographic findings at short-term follow-up?

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2018, we treated seven patients for atraumatic posterior shoulder instability. We performed this intervention when posterior shoulder instability symptoms were unresponsive to physiotherapy for at least 6 months and when it was associated with glenoid retroversion ≥ 15° and dysplasia of the posteroinferior glenoid. All seven patients had a follow-up examination at a minimum of 2 years. The median (range) age at surgery was 27 years (16 to 45) and the median follow-up was 2.3 years (2 to 3). Apprehension was assessed by a positive posterior apprehension and/or posterior jerk test. Patient-reported shoulder scores were obtained and included the subjective shoulder value, obtained by chart review (and scored with 100% representing a normal shoulder; minimum clinically important difference [MCID] 12%), and the Constant pain scale score (with 15 points representing no pain; MCID 1.5 points). Radiographic measurements included glenohumeral arthropathy and posterior humeral head subluxation, bone graft union, correction of glenoid retroversion and glenoid concavity depth, as well as augmentation of glenoid surface area. All endpoints were assessed by individuals not involved in patient care.

RESULTS

In four of seven patients, posterior apprehension was positive, but none reported resubluxation. The preoperative subjective shoulder value (median [range] 40% [30% to 80%]) and Constant pain scale score (median 7 points [3 to 13]) were improved at latest follow-up (median subjective shoulder value 90% [70% to 100%]; p = 0.02; median Constant pain scale score 15 points [10 to 15]; p = 0.03). Posterior glenoid cartilage erosion was present in four patients (all four had Walch Type B1 glenoids) preoperatively and showed no progression until the final follow-up examination. The median (range) humeral head subluxation index decreased from 69% (54% to 85%) preoperatively to 55% (46% to 67%) postoperatively (p = 0.02), and in two of four patients with preoperative humeral head subluxation (> 65% subluxation), it was reversed to a centered humeral head. CT images showed union in all implant-free, J-shaped iliac crest bone grafts. The median preoperative retroversion was corrected from 16° (15° to 25°) to 0° postoperatively (-5° to 6°; p = 0.02), the median glenoid concavity depth was reconstructed from 0.3 mm (-0.7 to 1.6) preoperatively to 1.2 mm (1.1 to 3.1) postoperatively (p = 0.02), and the median preoperative glenoid surface area was increased by 20% (p = 0.02). No intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded, and no reoperation was performed or is planned.

CONCLUSION

In this small, retrospective series of patients treated by experienced shoulder surgeons, a posterior J-bone graft procedure was able to reconstruct posterior glenoid morphology, correct glenoid retroversion, and improve posterior shoulder instability associated with pathologic glenoid retroversion and dysplasia, although four of seven patients had persistent posterior apprehension. Although no patients in this small series experienced complications, the size and complexity of this procedure make it likely that as more patients have it, some will develop complications; future studies will need to characterize the frequency and severity of those complications, and we recommend that this procedure be done only by experienced shoulder surgeons. The early results in these seven patients justify further study of this procedure for the proposed indication, but longer term follow-up is necessary to continue to assess whether it is advantageous to combine the reconstruction of posterior glenoid concavity with correction of pathological glenoid retroversion and increasing glenoid surface compared with traditional surgical techniques such as the posterior opening wedge osteotomy or simple posterior bone block procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.