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
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. 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%.Aims
Methods
Aims. The Bankart and
