Michael H Abdulian1, Curtis J Kephart1, 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@va.gov. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@va.gov. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. tqlee@va.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Bristow procedure has become an effective surgical option for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder; however, there is no consensus on whether a capsule repair following a Bristow procedure is necessary to restore glenohumeral stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether capsular repair with a modified Bristow procedure affects rotational range of motion and glenohumeral stability. METHODS: Rotational range of motion, glenohumeral translation and kinematics were measured in eight cadaveric shoulders in 90° shoulder abduction in the scapular and coronal planes for four conditions: intact, 20 % bony Bankart lesion, modified Bristow without capsular repair and modified Bristow with capsular repair. RESULTS: Creation of the bony Bankart led to a significant increase in total range of motion and anterior-inferior translation compared to the intact shoulder. The modified Bristow procedure significantly decreased anterior-inferior translation compared to the bony Bankart but did not decrease total range of motion. Capsular repair decreased total range of motion in the scapular and coronal planes and altered normal glenohumeral kinematics in external rotation positions. CONCLUSION: Repairing the capsule in a Bristow procedure decreases rotational range of motion yet does not offer any added anterior-inferior translational stability. Capsular repair also significantly alters normal glenohumeral kinematics. Capsule repair with a Bristow procedure may not add additional glenohumeral stability in positions of apprehension and may potentially over constrain the joint and cause altered kinematics.
PURPOSE: The Bristow procedure has become an effective surgical option for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder; however, there is no consensus on whether a capsule repair following a Bristow procedure is necessary to restore glenohumeral stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether capsular repair with a modified Bristow procedure affects rotational range of motion and glenohumeral stability. METHODS: Rotational range of motion, glenohumeral translation and kinematics were measured in eight cadaveric shoulders in 90° shoulder abduction in the scapular and coronal planes for four conditions: intact, 20 % bony Bankart lesion, modified Bristow without capsular repair and modified Bristow with capsular repair. RESULTS: Creation of the bony Bankart led to a significant increase in total range of motion and anterior-inferior translation compared to the intact shoulder. The modified Bristow procedure significantly decreased anterior-inferior translation compared to the bony Bankart but did not decrease total range of motion. Capsular repair decreased total range of motion in the scapular and coronal planes and altered normal glenohumeral kinematics in external rotation positions. CONCLUSION: Repairing the capsule in a Bristow procedure decreases rotational range of motion yet does not offer any added anterior-inferior translational stability. Capsular repair also significantly alters normal glenohumeral kinematics. Capsule repair with a Bristow procedure may not add additional glenohumeral stability in positions of apprehension and may potentially over constrain the joint and cause altered kinematics.
Keywords:
Anterior instability; Bankart lesion; Bone loss; Bristow; Capsule; Coracoid transfer
Authors: David T Schroder; Matthew T Provencher; Timothy S Mologne; Michael P Muldoon; Jay S Cox Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Dana P Piasecki; Nikhil N Verma; Anthony A Romeo; William N Levine; Bernard R Bach; Matthew T Provencher Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.020
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: T P Barry; S J Lombardo; R K Kerlan; F W Jobe; V S Carter; C L Shields; L A Yocum; J E Tibone Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1985-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: J A Hill; S J Lombardo; R K Kerlan; F W Jobe; V S Carter; C L Shields; H R Collins; L A Yocum Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 1981 Sep-Oct 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