Management of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions in anterior glenohumeral instability

Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND

The role of arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be definitively established and merits further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision procedure for failed Bankart repair, as well as the return to athletic activity and complication rates.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2020, patients with a previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair who were treated with an arthroscopic Latarjet were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical outcomes at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively included the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Dislocations, subluxations, complications, pre- and postoperative levels of activity, and degree of osteoarthritis were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients, with a mean age at revision surgery of 31.2 ± 9.1 years and with either 1 (n = 59), 2 (n = 13), or 3 (n = 4) previous arthroscopic stabilizations, who underwent revision surgery using an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were studied. Postoperatively, the mean Rowe and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores increased from 41.8 ± 16 to 90.7 ± 14.3 (P < .001) and from 50.5 ± 13.8 to 90.5 ± 10.3 (P < .001), respectively. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index decreased from 1247 ± 367.6 to 548.9 ± 363 at the final follow-up (P < .001). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 23.1 months, 64 shoulders (83.1%) were subjectively graded as good to excellent using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. Grade 1, 2, and 3 osteoarthritis, according to Ogawa et al, was found in 18 (23.4%), 6 (7.8%), and 3 (3.9%) shoulders, respectively. Six (7.8%) dislocations after revision surgery were reported. In 4 failed cases, an Eden-Hybinette procedure was conducted, and in the remaining 2 patients, an arthroscopic extra-articular anterior capsular reinforcement was performed. A significantly decreased level of athletic activity was observed postoperatively (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Latarjet for the revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory patient-reported subjective outcomes with a low rate of recurrences and complications. However, a decreased level of athletic activity is expected.

Understanding the Remplissage: History, Biomechanics, Outcomes, and Current Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arthroscopic remplissage has continued to gain popularity as an adjunct to Bankart repair for patients with anterior shoulder instability. Although the original remplissage technique was described over 15 years ago, our understanding of when and how to use this procedure continues to evolve. This article provides a review of how remplissage affects shoulder biomechanics, compares clinical outcomes between remplissage and other procedures for shoulder instability, and discusses current indications for remplissage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research focuses on the use of remplissage across a wide range of glenoid bone loss. Remplissage appears effective at preventing recurrent instability in patients with glenoid bone loss up to 15% of the glenoid width. However, once glenoid bone exceeds 15%, outcomes tend to favor bony reconstruction procedures such as Latarjet. Results of biomechanical studies examining shoulder range of motion (ROM) after remplissage are mixed, though clinical studies tend to report no significant limitations in ROM when remplissage is added to a Bankart repair. Adding a remplissage to conventional Bankart repair may improve clinical outcomes and lower rates of recurrent instability without significantly altering shoulder ROM. However, surgeons should recognize its limitations in treating patients with large amounts of glenoid bone loss and should be prepared to discuss alternative procedures on a case-by-case basis. Absolute indications and contraindications for remplissage are not well defined currently and require further scientific research.

Glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width percentage score are useful to select optimal operation for the treatment of glenohumeral instability in overhead athletes: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus open Latarjet

PURPOSE

Glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesion in contact and overhead athletes with subcritical bone loss is challenging to treat with high recurrent instability. Treatment options are arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet operations. However, there is no consensus on their effectiveness. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and return to sports after both operations and whether evaluating the glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width to calculate the total bone loss can help determine the appropriate operation.

METHODS

In this retrospective comparative analysis, 30 athletes who underwent index arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (n = 16) or Latarjet procedure (n = 14) between 2017 and 2020 were included. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were routinely performed. The quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), instability severity index (ISI) scores and range of motion (ROM) were recorded preoperatively and at a mean follow-up of 53 months (SD = 12). Follow-up included time-to-return sports, self-perceived sports performance level and complications/recurrent dislocations.

RESULTS

Preoperative qDASH, ASES, ISI scores, ages and genders were similar. The Latarjet group had significantly larger glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs width and total bone loss (p < 0.01). Both groups had significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after the operations (p < 0.01). Athletes with a total bone loss <25% underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and total bone loss ≥25% underwent Latarjet procedure, and there were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative PROs, ROM, time-to-return sports and performance. There were no re-dislocations.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage or Latarjet procedure can adequately address glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesions. Patients with total bone loss scores greater than or equal to 25 may particularly benefit from the Latarjet procedure, while the minimally invasive arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage can yield equally satisfying scores for total bone loss less than 25.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Graft Position, Healing, and Resorption in Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Comparison of 4 Glenoid Augmentation Techniques

Background

The success of glenoid augmentation procedures depends on accurate placement and healing of the graft to the glenoid. Different glenoid augmentation techniques have been described, but no comparative studies between them exist.

Purpose

To assess the bone graft position, healing, and resorption in a group of patients treated with 1 of 4 procedures: arthroscopic anterior bone-block procedure using either (1) fresh-frozen iliac crest allograft or (2) iliac crest autograft, (3) open Latarjet, or (4) arthroscopic Latarjet.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 40 patients (87.5% men; mean age, 29.5 ± 7.9 years) were included, with 10 patients in each of the procedure groups. The graft position in the axial and sagittal planes was assessed on postoperative computed tomography (CT). Graft healing and resorption were assessed in a second CT scan performed 1 year postoperatively. Qualitative variables were compared between the 4 procedures using the chi-square test, and quantitative variables were compared with the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

No differences were found between the procedures in the axial or sagittal position. The healing rate was significantly lower in the allograft bone-block group (20%) compared with the autograft bone-block (80%), open Latarjet (90%), and arthroscopic Latarjet (90%) groups (P < .001). Graft resorption developed in 17 of 40 (42.5%) cases overall. Osteolysis occurred in 100% of cases in the allograft bone-block group compared with 50% in the autograft group, 20% in the open Latarjet group, and 0% in the arthroscopic Latarjet group (P < .001). The glenoid surface area on 1-year CT scan was significantly lower in the allograft bone-block group compared with the autograft bone-block, open Latarjet, and arthroscopic Latarjet groups (P < .001).

Conclusion

Arthroscopic bone-block, open Latarjet, and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures provided accurate bone graft positioning. However, very high rates of osteolysis and nonunion were observed in the iliac crest fresh-frozen allograft bone-block procedure when compared with the other procedures.

Glenoid track revisited

The risk of Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) to cause instability depends not only on the HSL but also on the glenoid size. Clinically, the only method to assess the risk of instability considering the dynamic interaction of both, the HSL together with the glenoid bone loss, is the glenoid track concept. Since it was introduced in a cadaveric study, its clinical efficacy and validity have been reported in the literature. Sometimes, the medial margin of the footprint (lateral margin of the glenoid track) is difficult to identify when a HSL is overriding the footprint. In such cases, we propose a method to draw an imaginary line connecting 2 landmarks. Although 3-dimensional computed tomography is the most accurate and widely used method to assess on/off-track lesions, our interest gradually is shifting toward magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which has no radiation concern. The current magnetic resonance method is still under way. There are various risk factors influencing the recurrent instability after surgery. The glenoid track concept deals with only 1 of these factors, that is, instability caused by bony lesions. Therefore, the following 2 issues are important: 1) how to assess the glenoid track precisely and 2) how to incorporate other risk factors into consideration. The former can be achieved by obtaining the custom-made glenoid track width using not the fixed value of 83%, but more individualized value obtained by measuring the active horizontal extension angle of the opposite shoulder in the sitting position. At the same time, the gray zone (peripheral-track lesion) needs to be clearly defined. The latter can be achieved by incorporating the risk factors other than the bony lesions. One example is the Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS), a combination of the glenoid track concept and the instability severity index score. This new scoring system is expected to increase the predictive potential of the scoring system, and accordingly to enhance clinical decision-making.

Managing severe bipolar bone loss in athletes: A comprehensive approach with open Latarjet and arthroscopic remplissage

Background

Severe bipolar bone loss (BBL) represents one of the toughest challenges when managing the instability of glenohumeral joints among athletes and more specifically the ones involved in overhead sports. It refers to the significant loss of the humeral head and the glenoid bone, with an increased risk of failure. The present study aimed to evaluate the functional outcomes of a combined open Latarjet and arthroscopic remplissage in such high-risk individuals.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation was carried out among athletes with antero-inferior loss of glenoid bone of more than 15 % and large off-track Hill-Sachs defect who underwent the Latarjet technique with iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) harvest used in combination with arthroscopic remplissage between 2021 and 2023. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, constant-Murley score (CMS), and the range of motion (ROM; measured as forward flexion, external rotation, and abduction) were evaluated pre-operative and post-operative at the timepoint of 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year. Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging scans (MRI) and computed tomography scans (CT) were obtained among the patients with severe glenohumeral BBL, and the glenoid track was calculated to identify on-track and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Post-operative MRI with filled Hill-Sachs defect post remplissage procedure and 3D CT scan was also done at 6-month to evaluate the union of the ICBG to the native glenoid bone.

Results

Overall, 11 patients underwent for the combined procedure for severe BBL. The UCLA score (31.18 ± 3.74), and the CMS (93.64 ± 8.38) at the time-point of 1-year post-operatively showed remarkable improvement in comparison with the preoperative scores (P < 0.0001); and the ROM including abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion were restored to near normality. All patients showed bony union at 6-month as confirmed by post-operative CT scan. No complications such as redislocation or subluxation were observed over 1-year. There were no neurological complications or complications related to graft (graft migration or graft breakage or resorption) as well. All the athletes returned to sports activities at an average duration of 6.8-month post-operatively, with 73 % returning to sports at the level of pre-injury.

Conclusion

The combined procedure of ICBG Latarjet and arthroscopic remplissage for the treatment of severe BBL in athletes achieved satisfactory outcomes over 1-year, with all athletes returning to sports activities.

Surgical considerations for glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Treatment algorithms may consider many factors like glenoid and humeral bone loss, or scores such as the instability severity index score (ISIS). As most studies only evaluate a part of these factors, there is still no evidence-based consensus estalished. Our study aims to summarize the surgical options for treatment of glenoid bone loss (GBL) in anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Based on the current available literature, surgical options including Bankart repair and glenoid bone augmentation should be considered while taking into consideration the degree of bone loss which has been divided into < 10%, 10-20% and > 20%.

RESULTS

There are many new techniques evolving including arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction with bone blocks.

CONCLUSION

Future long-term outcome studies and randomized controlled trials comparing established techniques will be needed for new evidence-based treatment algorithms.

Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied.

HYPOTHESIS

Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability.

RESULTS

In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.