Yaiza Lopiz1, Carlos García-Fernández2, Alvaro Arriaza2, Belen Rizo2, Hector Marcelo2, Fernando Marco3. 1. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Clínico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Departamento de Cirugía, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: yaizalopiz@gmail.com. 2. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Clínico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 3. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Clínico San Carlos Hospital, Madrid, Spain; Departamento de Cirugía, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Large glenoid defects are a difficult reconstructive problem for shoulder surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine the complications, rate of healing, and functional results of glenoid bone grafting in primary or revision surgery with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 23 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent primary or revision surgery using a glenoid bone graft with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Range of motion and the Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and visual analog scale scores were obtained from preoperative assessment and the latest follow-up visit. Radiographic evaluation included analysis of plain radiographs as well as preoperative and follow-up computed tomography. RESULTS: Three patients were excluded from the study. Allografts were used in 13 cases and autografts in 7 cases. The mean Constant score improved from 30.7 ± 9.4 to 51.3 ± 13.4 (P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 26 months, computed tomography imaging revealed that the glenoid bone graft was fully incorporated in 95% of cases. No statistically significant differences were found on analysis of the clinical and radiographic outcomes related to the graft source. There was a 20% postoperative complication rate: 1 case of aseptic glenoid component loosening, 1 surgical wound hematoma, 1 acromial fracture, and a symptomatic grade 3 scapular notching. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bone grafts in glenoid defects is a useful technique by which, in the majority of cases, single-stage reconstruction surgery may be performed, even in the presence of severe bone loss. Incorporation rates are high, with satisfactory clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND: Large glenoid defects are a difficult reconstructive problem for shoulder surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine the complications, rate of healing, and functional results of glenoid bone grafting in primary or revision surgery with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 23 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent primary or revision surgery using a glenoid bone graft with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Range of motion and the Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and visual analog scale scores were obtained from preoperative assessment and the latest follow-up visit. Radiographic evaluation included analysis of plain radiographs as well as preoperative and follow-up computed tomography. RESULTS: Three patients were excluded from the study. Allografts were used in 13 cases and autografts in 7 cases. The mean Constant score improved from 30.7 ± 9.4 to 51.3 ± 13.4 (P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 26 months, computed tomography imaging revealed that the glenoid bone graft was fully incorporated in 95% of cases. No statistically significant differences were found on analysis of the clinical and radiographic outcomes related to the graft source. There was a 20% postoperative complication rate: 1 case of aseptic glenoid component loosening, 1 surgical wound hematoma, 1 acromial fracture, and a symptomatic grade 3 scapular notching. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bone grafts in glenoid defects is a useful technique by which, in the majority of cases, single-stage reconstruction surgery may be performed, even in the presence of severe bone loss. Incorporation rates are high, with satisfactory clinical outcome.
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Benjamin T Gaal; Alexander M Roche; Surena Namdari; Brian M Grawe; Macy Lawler; Stewart Dalton; Joseph J King; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-09-07
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-09-10