W Barrett Payne1, Matthew T Kleiner1, Michelle H McGarry2, James E Tibone1, Thay Q Lee3,4,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, 5901 East 7th. Street (09/151), Long Beach, CA, 90822, USA. 3. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, 5901 East 7th. Street (09/151), Long Beach, CA, 90822, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@med.va.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the Latarjet procedure, with and without a bone block, on glenohumeral range of motion, translation, and kinematics after creation of a bony Bankart lesion. METHODS: Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested for range of motion, translation, and kinematics in 90° shoulder abduction in both the scapular and coronal planes with the following conditions: intact, Bankart lesion with 20 % glenoid bone loss, Latarjet procedure and soft tissue only conjoined tendon transfer. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in range of motion in both the scapular and coronal planes with both the Latarjet and conjoined tendon transfer compared to the intact state. The Latarjet procedure restored anterior and inferior translation in both planes. The conjoined tendon transfer restored anterior and inferior translation at lower translational loads, but not with higher loads. Both reconstructions shifted the humeral head apex posteriorly in external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in range of motion suggests that the Latarjet procedure does not initially over-constrain the joint. At higher loads, there was improved stability with the Latarjet procedure compared to the conjoint tendon transfer. Both Latarjet and conjoined tendon transfer procedures alter normal joint kinematics by shifting the humeral head apex posteriorly in external rotation.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the Latarjet procedure, with and without a bone block, on glenohumeral range of motion, translation, and kinematics after creation of a bony Bankart lesion. METHODS: Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested for range of motion, translation, and kinematics in 90° shoulder abduction in both the scapular and coronal planes with the following conditions: intact, Bankart lesion with 20 % glenoid bone loss, Latarjet procedure and soft tissue only conjoined tendon transfer. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in range of motion in both the scapular and coronal planes with both the Latarjet and conjoined tendon transfer compared to the intact state. The Latarjet procedure restored anterior and inferior translation in both planes. The conjoined tendon transfer restored anterior and inferior translation at lower translational loads, but not with higher loads. Both reconstructions shifted the humeral head apex posteriorly in external rotation. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in range of motion suggests that the Latarjet procedure does not initially over-constrain the joint. At higher loads, there was improved stability with the Latarjet procedure compared to the conjoint tendon transfer. Both Latarjet and conjoined tendon transfer procedures alter normal joint kinematics by shifting the humeral head apex posteriorly in external rotation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bony Bankart; Cadaver; Conjoined tendon; Glenoid bone loss; Instability; Kinematics; Latarjet; Study
Authors: Matthew T Provencher; Sanjeev Bhatia; Neil S Ghodadra; Robert C Grumet; Bernard R Bach; Christopher B Dewing; Lance LeClere; Anthony A Romeo Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Curtis J Kephart; Michael H Abdulian; Michelle H McGarry; James E Tibone; Thay Q Lee Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Joshua W Giles; Harm W Boons; Ilia Elkinson; Kenneth J Faber; Louis M Ferreira; James A Johnson; George S Athwal Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: James E Voos; Ryan W Livermore; Brian T Feeley; David W Altchek; Riley J Williams; Russell F Warren; Frank A Cordasco; Answorth A Allen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Takayuki Muraki; Kai-Nan An; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield; Eiji Itoi; Gilles Walch; Scott P Steinmann Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alexandre Hardy; Vincent Sabatier; Pierre Laboudie; Bradley Schoch; Geoffroy Nourissat; Philippe Valenti; Jean Kany; Julien Deranlot; Nicolas Solignac; Philippe Hardy; Marie Vigan; Jean-David Werthel Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Helen Bradley; Lucca Lacheta; Brandon T Goldenberg; Samuel I Rosenberg; Matthew T Provencher; Peter J Millett Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: Patrick Goetti; Patrick J Denard; Philippe Collin; Mohamed Ibrahim; Pierre Hoffmeyer; Alexandre Lädermann Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2020-09-10