Clinical Outcomes and Graft Resorption After Metal-Free Bone Block Suture Tape Cerclage Fixation for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Computed Tomography Analysis

BACKGROUND

Glenoid reconstruction with a bone block for anterior glenoid bone loss (GBL) has shown excellent outcomes. However, fixation techniques that require metal implants are associated with metal-related complications and bone graft resorption.

HYPOTHESIS

Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction using a tricortical iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation can safely and effectively restore the glenoid surface area in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and anterior GBL.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 years) of both sexes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and anterior GBL ≥15% were enrolled. These patients underwent arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction with ICBGs and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation. The effectiveness and clinical outcomes with this technique were evaluated at 24 months using functional scores. Resorption of the graft articular surface was assessed by computed tomography, with the graft surface divided into 6 square areas aligned in 2 columns. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 23 consecutive patients met inclusion criteria (22 male, 1 female; mean age, 30.5 ± 7.9 years). The mean preoperative GBL was 19.7% ± 3.4%, and there were 15 allograft and 8 autograft ICBGs. All patients exhibited graft union at 3 months. The median follow-up was 38.5 months (interquartile range, 24-45 months). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Rowe, Constant-Murley, and Subjective Shoulder Value scores improved from preoperatively (35.1%, 24.8, 83.1, and 30.9, respectively) to postoperatively (84.7%, 91.1, 96.0, and 90.9, respectively) (P < .001). No differences in clinical scores were observed between the graft types. One surgical wound infection was reported, and 2 patients (8.7% [95% CI, 2.4%-26.8%]) required a reoperation. The mean overall glenoid surface area increased from 80.3% ± 3.5% to 117.0% ± 8.3% immediately after surgery before subsequently reducing to 98.7% ± 6.2% and 95.0% ± 5.7% at 12 and 24 months, respectively (P < .001). The mean graft resorption rate was 18.1% ± 7.9% in the inner column and 80.3% ± 22.4% in the outer column. Additionally, 3 patients treated with an allograft (20.0% [95% CI, 7.1%-45.2%]), including the 2 with clinical failures, exhibited complete graft resorption at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction using an ICBG and metal-free suture tape cerclage fixation was safe and effective, yielding excellent clinical outcomes. Resorption of the graft articular surface predominantly affected the nonloaded areas beyond the best-fit circle perimeter.

Comprehensive management of posterior shoulder instability: diagnosis, indications, and technique for arthroscopic bone block augmentation

Recurrent posterior glenohumeral instability is an entity that demands a high clinical suspicion and a detailed study for a correct approach and treatment. Its classification must consider its biomechanics, whether it is due to functional muscular imbalance or to structural changes, volition, and intentionality.

Due to its varied clinical presentations and different structural alterations, ranging from capsule-labral lesions and bone defects to glenoid dysplasia and retroversion, the different treatment alternatives available have historically had a high incidence of failure.

A detailed radiographic assessment, with both CT and MRI, with a precise assessment of glenoid and humeral bone defects and of glenoid morphology, is mandatory.

Physiotherapy focused on periscapular muscle reeducation and external rotator strengthening is always the first line of treatment. When conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment must be guided by the structural lesions present, ranging from soft tissue repair to posterior bone block techniques to restore or increase the articular surface.

Bone block procedures are indicated in cases of recurrent posterior instability after the failure of conservative treatment or soft tissue techniques, as well as symptomatic demonstrable nonintentional instability, presence of a posterior glenoid defect >10%, increased glenoid retroversion between 10 and 25°, and posterior rim dysplasia. Bone block fixation techniques that avoid screws and metal allow for satisfactory initial clinical results in a safe and reproducible way.

An algorithm for the approach and treatment of recurrent posterior glenohumeral instability is presented, as well as the author’s preferred surgical technique for arthroscopic posterior bone block.

Clinical and microbiological findings in prosthetic joint replacement due to aseptic loosening

OBJECTIVES

A role for microorganisms in aseptic prosthetic loosening (AL) is postulated. We analyse the microbiological and clinical findings of patients with suspected AL, and compare them with patients with chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

METHODS

Prospective study (2011-2012) of patients with presumed AL. Evaluation of tissue samples (≥5; TS) at the time of surgery and sonication fluid (SF) of prosthesis.

RESULTS

According to positive culture in TS/SF, 89 patients were divided into: Group1: (≥2 positive-TS; n = 12); Group2: single positive-TS and concordant SF (n = 10); Group3: one positive or non-concordant TS or SF (n = 38); and Group4: cultures negative (n = 29). Positive-SF was always concordant with TS in Group 1 (75%); it was positive in 74% in Group 3. Median months (prosthesis-age: implantation to revision arthroplasty) for PJI and Group 1-4 was 21, 46, 65, 63 and 81, respectively (P < 0.001); they also had a different dynamic trend in prosthesis failure (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Several patients with suspected AL are misdiagnosed PJI. Results from SF correlated well with TS in Group 1, led us to consider single positive-TS as significant (Group 2) and to suggest that microorganisms were on the prosthesis (Group 3). We observed a correlation between microbiology and prosthesis-age, which supports that early loosening is more often caused by hidden PJI than late loosening.

[What do orthopedic surgeons need to know from radiologists?]

The diagnosis of tumors and pseudotumors depends on three pillars: the clinician, the radiologist, and the pathologist. The first two can establish a presumptive diagnosis on the basis of the clinical presentation and findings on complementary tests, whereas the pathologist will have to reach the definitive diagnosis after analyzing the biopsy specimens. Obviously, the clinician and radiologist should reach a consensus regarding the diagnostic orientation; however, for this to happen there must be a relationship between the two professionals and they must work together for the benefit of the patient. Orthopedic surgeons, like any other group of specialists, would like to have radiologists working in their own center who are dedicated to the organ/system they treat, in this case the locomotor apparatus, and who can provide them with their opinion about the different images obtained. This point is very important and especially so for tumors, because this type of disease is uncommon and few specialists are dedicated to it. For this reason, when faced with a lesion that has the characteristics of a tumor, orthopedic surgeons would like radiologists to give the most accurate description of the images as possible, defining the characteristics of benignity or malignancy of the process as well as indicating the risk of fracture in a metastatic lesion. On the other hand, orthopedic surgeons would ask for a clear and comprehensible description of the images obtained in complementary tests, because orthopedic surgeons have less experience in this type of images and they are often difficult to interpret. Another aspect that is often mentioned in discussions among orthopedic surgeons is the importance of having a radiology department that performs interventional procedures. Radiologists that perform interventional procedures can facilitate our work very much, both in the diagnosis and in the treatment of certain bone tumors. Finally, we would like to stress the importance of having a radiologist who collaborates with us and is interested in our work, supporting us without being overly critical. This is also important for our relations with patients; radiologists, like all professionals, must know their responsibilities and limitations in aspects related to intervention and in elaborating the corresponding reports.