Shaha, James S.

Purpose To evaluate the superior to inferior glenoid height as a reliable reference in best‐fit circle creation for glenoid anatomy. Methods The morphology of the native glenoid was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients without shoulder instability. Using T1 sagittal MRI images, 2 reviewers independently estimated glenoid size using the two‐thirds technique and the “best‐fit circle” technique at 2 different times. A Student t ‐test was used to determine significant difference between the two methodologies. Inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability were calculated using interclass and intraclass coefficients. Results This study included 112 patients. Using the results of glenoid height and “best‐fit circle” diameter, the diameter of the “best‐fit circle” was found to intersect the glenoid line at 67.8% of the glenoid height on average. We found no significant difference between the 2 measures of glenoid diameter (27.6 vs 27.9, P = .456). The interclass and intraclass coefficients for the two‐third method were 0.85 and 0.88, respectively. The interclass and intraclass coefficients for the perfect circle methods were 0.84 and 0.73, respectively. Conclusions We determined that the diameter of a circle placed on the inferior glenoid using the “best‐fit circle” technique corresponds to 67.8% of the glenoid height. Additionally, we found that constructing a perfect circle using a diameter equal to two‐thirds the height of the glenoid may improve intraclass reliability. Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Abstract Rotator cuff repair failure rates continue to be a challenging problem. Various methods of biological and structural augmentation of the rotator cuff have been explored to improve tendon healing after repair. We describe a technique in which biceps tendon autograft is harvested after tenodesis. The biceps tendon is then compressed into a patch that is placed over the repaired rotator cuff tendon. Repurposing the portion of the tendon that is otherwise discarded offers several advantages over other augmentations that have been used, including the biological potential of live autograft tenocytes in the patch, lower cost, and no donor‐site morbidity. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Glenohumeral bone loss is a significant risk factor for recurrent instability after shoulder dislocation. The Hill‐Sachs lesion is an osseous defect of the posterior humeral head that is commonly recognized after anterior shoulder dislocation. Several procedures exist to address humeral‐sided bone loss, including soft tissue filling procedures, osteoarticular allografts, bone plugs, rotation osteotomies, and humeral head replacements. However, among the most common of these procedures is the arthroscopic remplissage. This technique involves capsulotenodesis of the posterior shoulder capsule and infraspinatus tendon into a Hill‐Sachs lesion. Previously described techniques use knotted suture anchors. In this report, we describe a modified technique for remplissage using knotless, all‐suture anchors to perform capsulotenodesis of a Hill‐Sachs lesion. Benefits of this technique include a single skin incision, improved bone preservation, and easier facilitation of revision surgery if required. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Resilience, the capacity to recover from a setback or adversity, is a concept that has received considerable recent attention. An individual’s resilience predicts their life trajectory following stressful events and this has increasingly been shown in a wide variety of applications. Our understanding of the degree to which we can modify our resilience, and the optimal means to do so, remains in its infancy. The US military has embraced extensive efforts to quantify and build resilience in service members in an effort to preserve the fighting force. We specifically look at the understanding of resilience as it relates to the athletes in terms of competition and return from injury. This article explores the concept of resilience, the efforts to build resilience, lessons learned from the military and applications of the resilience concept to surgical and trauma patients.

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.