Objectives. The bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) allows for quantification of the bony stabilisers in vivo. We aimed to biomechanically validate the BSSR, determine whether joint incongruence affects the stability ratio (SR) of a shoulder model, and determine the correct parameters (glenoid concavity versus humeral head radius) for calculation of the BSSR in vivo. Methods. Four polyethylene balls (radii: 19.1 mm to 38.1 mm) were used to mould four fitting sockets in four different depths (3.2 mm to 19.1mm). The SR was measured in biomechanical congruent and incongruent experimental series. The experimental SR of a congruent system was compared with the calculated SR based on the BSSR approach. Differences in SR between congruent and incongruent experimental conditions were quantified. Finally, the experimental SR was compared with either calculated SR based on the socket concavity or plastic ball radius. Results. The experimental SR is comparable with the calculated SR (mean difference 10%, . sd. 8%; relative values). The experimental incongruence study observed almost no differences (2%, . sd. 2%). The calculated SR on the basis of the socket concavity radius is superior in predicting the experimental SR (mean difference 10%, . sd. 9%) compared with the calculated SR based on the plastic ball radius (mean difference 42%, . sd. 55%). Conclusion. The present biomechanical investigation confirmed the validity of the BSSR. Incongruence has no significant effect on the SR of a shoulder model. In the event of an incongruent system, the calculation of the BSSR on the basis of the glenoid concavity radius is recommended. Cite this article: L. Ernstbrunner, J-D. Werthel, T. Hatta, A. R. Thoreson, H. Resch, K-N. An, P. Moroder.
Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available. Cite this article:
