Reinhold Ortmaier1, Philipp Moroder2, Corinna Hirzinger3, Herbert Resch2. 1. Department of Traumatology and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. Electronic address: r.ortmaier@gmail.com. 2. Department of Traumatology and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 3. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of young, active patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis, excessive glenoid retroversion, and static posterior humeral subluxation is challenging. Correction of glenoid retroversion may lead to centric loading and perhaps recenter the humeral head. We describe the functional and radiologic outcomes after corrective osteotomy of the glenoid in this population of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 10 shoulders (8 patients) that were observed for a mean of 33.4 months (range, 24-52 months) after corrective osteotomy of the glenoid. The mean age at surgery was 41.5 years (range, 24-51 years). On standardized axial images, glenoid retroversion and posterior static humeral subluxation were measured preoperatively and postoperatively and at the final follow-up. At final follow-up, anterior and posterior axial radiographs were performed to determine humeral head position in different arm positions. Clinical follow-up included Constant-Murley score, subjective shoulder value, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The mean Constant-Murley score improved significantly from 45.1 points (range, 24-71) to 64.1 points (range, 44-92; P < .001). The average degree of anterior flexion improved significantly from 117° (range, 50°-160°) to 143° (range, 110°-180°; P = .006). The mean glenoid retroversion changed from 16° (range, 11°-31°) preoperatively to 5° (range, 13° anteversion-16° retroversion; P = .003) at the final follow-up. The mean posterior static subluxation of the humeral head changed from 5 mm (range, 0-10 mm) preoperatively to 6 mm (range, 0-14 mm; P = .259) at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that posterior open wedge osteotomy of the glenoid neck provides excellent correction of glenoid retroversion.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of young, active patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis, excessive glenoid retroversion, and static posterior humeral subluxation is challenging. Correction of glenoid retroversion may lead to centric loading and perhaps recenter the humeral head. We describe the functional and radiologic outcomes after corrective osteotomy of the glenoid in this population of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we included 10 shoulders (8 patients) that were observed for a mean of 33.4 months (range, 24-52 months) after corrective osteotomy of the glenoid. The mean age at surgery was 41.5 years (range, 24-51 years). On standardized axial images, glenoid retroversion and posterior static humeral subluxation were measured preoperatively and postoperatively and at the final follow-up. At final follow-up, anterior and posterior axial radiographs were performed to determine humeral head position in different arm positions. Clinical follow-up included Constant-Murley score, subjective shoulder value, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The mean Constant-Murley score improved significantly from 45.1 points (range, 24-71) to 64.1 points (range, 44-92; P < .001). The average degree of anterior flexion improved significantly from 117° (range, 50°-160°) to 143° (range, 110°-180°; P = .006). The mean glenoid retroversion changed from 16° (range, 11°-31°) preoperatively to 5° (range, 13° anteversion-16° retroversion; P = .003) at the final follow-up. The mean posterior static subluxation of the humeral head changed from 5 mm (range, 0-10 mm) preoperatively to 6 mm (range, 0-14 mm; P = .259) at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that posterior open wedge osteotomy of the glenoid neck provides excellent correction of glenoid retroversion.
Authors: Florian B Imhoff; Roland S Camenzind; Elifho Obopilwe; Mark P Cote; Julian Mehl; Knut Beitzel; Andreas B Imhoff; Augustus D Mazzocca; Robert A Arciero; Felix G E Dyrna Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Lucca Lacheta; Taran S P Singh; Jean M Hovsepian; Sepp Braun; Andreas B Imhoff; Jonas Pogorzelski Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Lukas Ernstbrunner; Thomas Häller; Manuel Waltenspül; Karl Wieser; Christian Gerber Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Marian Mitterer; Nicholas Matis; Gernot Steiner; Imre Vasvary; Reinhold Ortmaier Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Abdul-Ilah Hachem; Andres Molina-Creixell; Xavier Rius; Karla Rodriguez-Bascones; Francisco Javier Cabo Cabo; Jose Luis Agulló; Miguel Angel Ruiz-Iban Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2022-08-04