Guillaume D Dumont1, Bryan G Vopat2, Stephen Parada3, Randy Cohn4, Amun Makani5, George Sanchez6, Petar Golijanin7, Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones7, Anthony Sanchez8, Matthew T Provencher9. 1. University Specialty Clinics, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A. 2. Sports Medicine & Performance Center, The University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City, Kansas, U.S.A. 3. Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia, U.S.A. 4. North Shore LIJ Orthopaedic Institute, Garden City, New York, U.S.A. 5. Watson Clinic LLP, Lakeland, Florida, U.S.A. 6. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A. 7. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S.A. 8. Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, U.S.A. 9. The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.. Electronic address: mprovencher@thesteadmanclinic.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the surface area available for bony contact and the width of bone on each side of the Latarjet fixation screws in the traditional Latarjet technique versus the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique. METHODS: Computed tomographic scans of 24 shoulders in patients with glenohumeral instability who underwent multiplanar reconstruction measurements with multiple dimensions of the coracoid. The surface area of the coracoid available for bony contact with the anterior glenoid and width of bone on each side of a 3.5-mm screw was compared for the traditional Latarjet technique versus the congruent arc modification. RESULTS: The surface area available for bony contact to the anterior glenoid was 5.65 ± 1.08 cm2 using the traditional Latarjet technique compared with 3.64 ± 0.93 cm2 using the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique (P < .001). The mean width of bone on each side of a 3.5-mm screw was 7.1 ± 1.0 mm using the traditional Latarjet technique compared with 4.1 ± 1.0 mm using the congruent arc modification (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The traditional Latarjet technique has greater bony contact with the glenoid and greater bone width on each side of the screws compared with the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique. This potentially allows for a larger surface for healing in the traditional Latarjet technique. Moreover, because of smaller width of the bone around the screw, the congruent arc modification is potentially less tolerant of screw-positioning error compared with the traditional Latarjet technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To compare the surface area available for bony contact and the width of bone on each side of the Latarjet fixation screws in the traditional Latarjet technique versus the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique. METHODS: Computed tomographic scans of 24 shoulders in patients with glenohumeral instability who underwent multiplanar reconstruction measurements with multiple dimensions of the coracoid. The surface area of the coracoid available for bony contact with the anterior glenoid and width of bone on each side of a 3.5-mm screw was compared for the traditional Latarjet technique versus the congruent arc modification. RESULTS: The surface area available for bony contact to the anterior glenoid was 5.65 ± 1.08 cm2 using the traditional Latarjet technique compared with 3.64 ± 0.93 cm2 using the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique (P < .001). The mean width of bone on each side of a 3.5-mm screw was 7.1 ± 1.0 mm using the traditional Latarjet technique compared with 4.1 ± 1.0 mm using the congruent arc modification (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The traditional Latarjet technique has greater bony contact with the glenoid and greater bone width on each side of the screws compared with the congruent arc modification of the Latarjet technique. This potentially allows for a larger surface for healing in the traditional Latarjet technique. Moreover, because of smaller width of the bone around the screw, the congruent arc modification is potentially less tolerant of screw-positioning error compared with the traditional Latarjet technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Benjamin Bockmann; Arne Johannes Venjakob; Rolf Gebing; Frank Reichwein; Marthe Hagenacker; Wolfgang Nebelung Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Parke W Hudson; Martim C Pinto; Eugene W Brabston; Matthew C Hess; Brent M Cone; Johnathan F Williams; William S Brooks; Amit M Momaya; Brent A Ponce Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: Hytham S Salem; Alexander L Vasconcellos; Oliver C Sax; Kent C Doan; Matthew T Provencher; Anthony A Romeo; Kevin B Freedman; Rachel M Frank Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-01-25