Aims. 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. Methods. 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%. Results. At 13.8%, only the Pico technique measured under the threshold. At 17.6% and 22.9% bone loss all techniques measured above the threshold. The Pico technique was 97.1% accurate, but had a high false-negative rate and poor sensitivity underestimating the need for grafting. The Sugaya technique had 100% specificity but 25% of the measurements were incorrectly above the threshold. A contralateral COBF underestimates the area by 16% and the diameter by 5 to 7%. Conclusion. No one method stands out as being truly accurate and clinicians need to be aware of the limitations of their chosen technique. They are not interchangeable, and caution must be used when reading the literature as comparisons are not reliable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):478–489

Aims. The Bankart and Latarjet procedures are two of the most common surgical techniques to treat anterior shoulder instability with satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes. However, the outcomes in the adolescent population remain unclear, and there is no information regarding the arthroscopic Latarjet in this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures in the management of anterior shoulder instability in adolescents. Methods. We present a retrospective, matched-pair study of teenagers with anterior glenohumeral instability treated with an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) or an arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure with a minimum two-year follow-up. Preoperative demographic and clinical features, factors associated with dislocation, and complications were collected. Recurrence, defined as dislocation or subluxation, was established as the primary outcome. Clinical and functional outcomes were analyzed using objective (Rowe), and subjective (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE)) scores. Additionally, the rate of return to sport was assessed. Results. A total of 51 adolescents were included, of whom 46 (92%) were male, with 17 (33%) in the Latarjet group and 34 (66%) in the Bankart group. The mean age at time of surgery was 18 years (15 to 19). There were no intraoperative complications. At a median follow-up of nine years (IQR 2 to 18), recurrence was observed in 12 patients in the Bankart group (35.3%) and one patient in the Latarjet group (5.9%) (p = 0.023). Satisfactory postoperative outcomes were obtained, with mean Rowe, WOSI, and SANE scores noted at 95 (10 to 100), 325 (25 to 1,975), and 87.5 (10 to 100), respectively. Most patients (29 in the Bankart group (85.3%) and 16 in the Latarjet group (94.1%)) were able to return to sport (p = 0.452). Conclusion. The ABR and AL procedures both obtain satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes in the treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability in adolescents with a low complication rate. However, the ABR is associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(11):1041–1048

Aims. There remains a lack of consensus regarding the management of chronic anterior sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) instability. This study aimed to assess whether a standardized treatment algorithm (incorporating physiotherapy and surgery and based on the presence of trauma) could successfully guide management and reduce the number needing surgery. Methods. Patients with chronic anterior SCJ instability managed between April 2007 and April 2019 with a standardized treatment algorithm were divided into non-traumatic (offered physiotherapy) and traumatic (offered surgery) groups and evaluated at discharge. Subsequently, midterm outcomes were assessed via a postal questionnaire with a subjective SCJ stability score, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS, adapted for the SCJ), and pain visual analogue scale (VAS), with analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. Results. A total of 47 patients (50 SCJs, three bilateral) responded for 75% return rate. Of these, 31 SCJs were treated with physiotherapy and 19 with surgery. Overall, 96% (48/50) achieved a stable SCJ, with 60% (30/50) achieving unrestricted function. In terms of outcomes, 82% (41/50) recorded good-to-excellent OSIS scores (84% (26/31) physiotherapy, 79% (15/19) surgery), and 76% (38/50) reported low pain VAS scores at final follow-up. Complications of the total surgical cohort included a 19% (5/27) revision rate, 11% (3/27) frozen shoulder, and 4% (1/27) scar sensitivity. Conclusion. This is the largest midterm series reporting chronic anterior SCJ instability outcomes when managed according to a standardized treatment algorithm that emphasizes the importance of appropriate patient selection for either physiotherapy or surgery, based on a history of trauma. All but two patients achieved a stable SCJ, with stability maintained at a median of 70 months (11 to 116) for the physiotherapy group and 87 months (6 to 144) for the surgery group. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):815–825