Abstract The scapula has long been recognized as a key component in shoulder motion and a crucial part of the kinetic chain connecting the body's core and upper extremity. The pectoralis minor (PM) has garnered increasing attention as we better understand scapular kinematics and its role in shoulder pain and dysfunction. This is particularly important in patients with scapular dyskinesis and especially in overhead throwing athletes. The most of these patients achieve their recovery goals through nonoperative management, stretching, and strengthening protocols; however, some patients do not respond to nonoperative modalities. Several studies have recently shown improvement in shoulder motion and outcome scores after open surgical release of the PM from its scapular attachment. Arthroscopic release of the PM can be accomplished in the lateral decubitus position with standard shoulder arthroscopic portals. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.
Outcomes of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with B2 Glenoids
Background: Total shoulder arthroplasty remains an effective procedure for shoulder pain relief. Despite the negative effect of abnormal glenoid morphology and specifically retroverted and posteriorly subluxated glenoids, there is no consensus for management of B2 glenoids in total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and complication rates for B2 glenoid techniques so as to provide a baseline understanding of the current state of treatment of this pathology. Methods: A systematic review evaluating outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with biconcave glenoids using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology included searches up to December 31, 2015, of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar. Nine articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: In this study, 239 total shoulder arthroplasties with B2 glenoids with a mean follow-up of 55.5 months (range, 24 to 91 months) were included. The mean patient age was 63.3 years (range, 55.8 to 68.7 years). Asymmetric reaming was performed in 127 glenoids, posterior bone-grafting was included in 53 glenoids, and 34 received an augmented glenoid component to correct glenoid retroversion and bone loss. Overall, the mean Constant and Neer scores improved from preoperative measures. Fifty-eight percent of patients had no loosening, and 42% had some loosening, although not all of these patients were symptomatic. Despite variation in outcome measures hindering treatment approach comparison, the posteriorly augmented glenoid was generally reported to provide better outcomes with few complications. Although posterior glenoid bone-grafting results in acceptable outcomes, it also represents the highest rate of complications. The revision rate was 15.6% for asymmetric reaming, 9.5% for posterior glenoid bone-grafting, and 0% for posteriorly augmented glenoids. Conclusions: Surgical treatment of the B2 glenoid remains a challenge to the shoulder surgeon, with worse outcomes and higher complication rates. Longer follow-up, consistent outcome measures, and result stratification based on glenoid type may allow for direct comparison in the future. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Use of a Knotless Suture Anchor to Perform Double‐Pulley Capsulotenodesis of Infraspinatus
Abstract In this Technical Note, we describe an arthroscopic remplissage procedure to treat anterior instability. Specifically, we use a technique to perform double‐pulley capsulotenodesis of the infraspinatus tendon using a Knotless SutureTak Suture Anchor (Arthrex, Naples, FL). This is a modification of a previously described double‐pulley technique. The primary advantage of our technique compared with the previous double‐pulley techniques described is that knot tying is not required. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.
High Tibial Osteotomy Performed With All-PEEK Implants Demonstrates Similar Outcomes but Less Hardware Removal at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up Compared With Metal Plates
Background: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a valuable treatment option in the high-demand patient with chondral damage and an altered mechanical axis. Traditional opening wedge HTO performed with metal plates has several limitations, including hardware irritation, obscuration of detail on magnetic resonance imaging, and complexity of revision surgery. Recently, an all-polyetheretherketone (PEEK) HTO implant was introduced, but no studies to date have evaluated the performance of this implant with minimum 2-year outcomes compared with a traditional metal plate. Purpose: To compare patient outcomes and complications of HTO performed using a traditional metal plate with those performed using an all-PEEK implant. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All patients who underwent HTO by a single surgeon with a minimum 2-year follow-up over a 4-year period were identified. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, concomitant procedures, implant used, type and degree of correction, complications, reoperations, and failures. Recorded patient outcomes included EuroQol–5 dimensions (EQ-5D), resiliency, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Tegner activity level scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. HTO performed using a traditional metal plate served as the control group. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t test for continuous variables and chi-square analysis for nonparametric data, with P < .05 considered significant. Results: A total of 41 patients (21 in the all-PEEK group, 20 in the control group) were identified with greater than 2-year follow-up. The mean patient age was 44 years, and there were no differences between the groups with regard to demographics, degree of correction, or concomitant procedures. In addition, no significant differences were found for any of the patient-reported outcomes. Complications (10% vs 15%, respectively; P = .59), failures (10% vs 5%, respectively; P = .58), and reoperations (10% vs 30%, respectively; P = .10) were similar for the all-PEEK and control groups. However, the all-PEEK group did not have any hardware removal, while 4 patients in the control group underwent hardware removal ( P = .03). Conclusion: This study suggests that an all-PEEK implant may be safely used with comparable outcomes and complication rates to the traditional method but with less need for hardware removal.
Distal Clavicular Osteochondral Autograft Augmentation for Glenoid Bone Loss: A Comparison of Radius of Restoration Versus Latarjet Graft
Background: Bone loss in shoulder instability is a well-recognized cause of failure after stabilization surgery. Many approaches have been described to address glenoid bone loss, including coracoid transfer. This transfer can be technically difficult and has been associated with high complication rates. An ideal alternative to coracoid transfer would be an autologous source of fresh osteochondral graft with enough surface area to replace significant glenoid bone loss. The distal clavicle potentially provides such a graft source that is readily available and low-cost. Purpose: To evaluate distal clavicular autograft reconstruction for instability-related glenoid bone loss, specifically comparing the width of the clavicular autograft with the width of an ipsilateral coracoid graft as prepared for a Latarjet procedure. Further, we sought to compare the articular cartilage thickness of the distal clavicle graft with that of the native glenoid. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-seven fresh-frozen cadaver specimens were dissected, and an open distal clavicle excision was performed. The coracoid process in each specimen was prepared as has been described for a classic Latarjet coracoid transfer. In each specimen, the distal clavicle graft was compared with the coracoid graft for size and potential of glenoid articular radius of restoration. The distal clavicle graft was also compared with the native glenoid for cartilage thickness. Results: In all specimens, the distal clavicle grafts provided a greater radius of glenoid restoration than the coracoid grafts ( P < .0001). On average, the clavicular graft was able to reconstruct 44% of the glenoid diameter, compared with 33% for the coracoid graft ( P < .0001). The articular cartilage of the glenoid was significantly thicker (1.4 mm thicker, P < .0001) than that of the distal clavicular autograft (average ± SD, 3.5 ± 0.6 mm vs 2.1 ± 0.8 mm, respectively). When specimens with osteoarthritis were excluded, this difference decreased to 0.97 mm when compared with the clavicular cartilage ( P = .0026). Conclusion: The distal clavicle autograft can restore a significantly greater glenoid bone deficit than the Latarjet procedure and has the additional benefit of restoring articular cartilage to the glenoid. The articular cartilage thickness of the distal clavicle is within 1.4 mm of that of the native glenoid. Clinical Relevance: The distal clavicular autograft may be a suitable option for reconstruction of instability-related glenoid bone loss. This graft provides a structural osteochondral autograft with a broader radius of reconstruction than that of a coracoid graft, is locally available, has minimal donor site morbidity, is anatomic, and provides articular cartilage.
Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Shoulder Instability: Prevalence and Outcomes in Arthroscopic Treatment
Background: Glenoid bone loss is a well-accepted risk factor for failure after arthroscopic stabilization of anterior glenohumeral instability. Glenoid bone loss in posterior instability has been noted relative to its existence in posterior instability surgery. Its effect on outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization has not been specifically evaluated and reported. Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the presence of posterior glenoid bone loss in a series of patients who had undergone arthroscopic isolated stabilization of the posterior labrum. Bone loss was then correlated to return-to-duty rates, complications, and validated patient-reported outcomes. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single military treatment facility over a 4-year period (2010-2013). Patients with primary posterior instability who underwent arthroscopic isolated posterior labral repair were included. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was used to calculate posterior glenoid bone loss using a standardized “perfect circle” technique. Demographics, return to duty, complications, and reoperations, as well as outcomes scores including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores, were obtained. Outcomes were analyzed across all patients based on percentage of posterior glenoid bone loss. Bone loss was then categorized as below or above the subcritical threshold of 13.5% to determine if bone loss effected outcomes similar to what has been shown in anterior instability. Results: There were 43 consecutive patients with primary, isolated posterior instability, and 32 (74.4%) completed WOSI scoring. Mean follow-up was 53.7 months (range, 25-82 months) The mean posterior glenoid bone loss was 7.3% (0%-21.5%). Ten of 32 patients (31%) had no appreciable bone loss. Bone loss exceeded 13.5% in 7 of 32 patients (22%), and 2 patients (6%) exceeded 20% bone loss. Return to full duty or activity was nearly 90% overall. However, those with >13.5%, subcritical glenoid bone loss, were statistically less likely to return to full duty (relative risk = 1.8), but outcomes scores, complications, and revision rates were otherwise not different in those with no or minimal bone loss versus those with more significant amounts. Conclusion: Posterior glenoid bone loss has not previously been evaluated independently relative to patients with shoulder instability repairs. Sixty-nine percent of our patients had measurable bone loss, and 22% had greater than 13.5%, or above subcritical bone loss. While these patients were statistically less likely to return to full duty, the reoperation rate, complications, and patient-reported outcomes between groups were not different.
Preoperative Ultrasonography Is Unreliable in Predicting Hamstring Tendon Graft Diameter for ACL Reconstruction
Background: Hamstring autograft size <8 mm has been shown to be a predictor for failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The ability to predict graft size preoperatively is helpful in counseling patients about the possible need for graft augmentation. Purpose: To determine whether preoperative ultrasound (US) measurements of hamstring tendons can predict intraoperative graft diameter during ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Twenty patients undergoing unilateral isolated ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled in the study (10 males, 10 females; mean ± SD age, 22.8 ± 6.6 years; height, 175.1 ± 7.1 cm; weight, 81.4 ± 14.2 kg; body mass index, 26.5 ± 4.1 kg/m 2 ). Hamstrings were assessed by US, and double-looped semitendinosus-gracilis hamstring size was independently calculated with a freehand selection method on a nonmagnified US image by 2 orthopaedic surgeons. Intraoperative autograft size was determined with a standard graft-sizing tool. Intra- and interrater reliability was measured with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of the measure (SEM). A receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated to assess the ability of the US measurement to predict intraoperative measurements. Results: The mean autograft diameter by US was 8.9 ± 0.98 mm, while the mean intraoperative hamstring graft size was 8.1 ± 0.89 mm. There was excellent intrarater (ICC 2,1 = 0.95, SEM = 0.32 mm) and interrater (ICC 2,1 = 0.88, SEM = 0.55 mm) reliability for US measurements. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that US did not consistently quantify graft size. Graft size did not significantly correlate with height, weight, or body mass index in our sample ( P > .05). Conclusion: These results suggest that preoperative US imaging of the hamstring tendons is unreliable in predicting intraoperative graft diameter.