BACKGROUND: Bony deficiency of the anteroinferior glenoid rim as a result of a dislocation can lead to recurrent glenohumeral instability. These lesions, traditionally treated by open techniques, are increasingly being treated arthroscopically as our understanding of the pathophysiology and anatomy of the glenohumeral joint becomes clearer. Different techniques for arthroscopic management have been described and continue to evolve. While the success of the repair is surgeon dependent, the recent advances in arthroscopic shoulder surgery have contributed to the growing acceptance of arthroscopic reconstruction of glenoid bone defects to restore stability. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to describe arthroscopic surgical management options for patients with glenohumeral osseous lesions and instability. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline was conducted to identify eligible studies. The reference lists of identified articles were then screened. Both technique articles and long-term outcome studies evaluating arthroscopic management of glenohumeral lesions were included. RESULTS: Studies included for final analysis ranged from Level II to V evidence. Technique articles include suture anchor fixation of associated glenoid rim fractures, arthroscopic reduction and percutaneous fixation of greater tuberosity fractures, arthroscopic filling ("remplissage") of the humeral Hill-Sachs lesion, and an all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. The overall redislocation rate varied but was consistently <10% with a low complication rate. CONCLUSION: Management of glenohumeral instability can be challenging but more recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have provided improved means of treating this diagnosis. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the arthroscopic treatment of osseous instability of the shoulder. It provides an in depth look at the various treatment options and describes techniques for each.
BACKGROUND: Bony deficiency of the anteroinferior glenoid rim as a result of a dislocation can lead to recurrent glenohumeral instability. These lesions, traditionally treated by open techniques, are increasingly being treated arthroscopically as our understanding of the pathophysiology and anatomy of the glenohumeral joint becomes clearer. Different techniques for arthroscopic management have been described and continue to evolve. While the success of the repair is surgeon dependent, the recent advances in arthroscopic shoulder surgery have contributed to the growing acceptance of arthroscopic reconstruction of glenoid bone defects to restore stability. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to describe arthroscopic surgical management options for patients with glenohumeral osseous lesions and instability. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline was conducted to identify eligible studies. The reference lists of identified articles were then screened. Both technique articles and long-term outcome studies evaluating arthroscopic management of glenohumeral lesions were included. RESULTS: Studies included for final analysis ranged from Level II to V evidence. Technique articles include suture anchor fixation of associated glenoid rim fractures, arthroscopic reduction and percutaneous fixation of greater tuberosity fractures, arthroscopic filling ("remplissage") of the humeral Hill-Sachs lesion, and an all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. The overall redislocation rate varied but was consistently <10% with a low complication rate. CONCLUSION: Management of glenohumeral instability can be challenging but more recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have provided improved means of treating this diagnosis. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the arthroscopic treatment of osseous instability of the shoulder. It provides an in depth look at the various treatment options and describes techniques for each.
Authors: Patrick Platzer; Florian Kutscha-Lissberg; Stephan Lehr; Vilmos Vecsei; Christian Gaebler Journal: Injury Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Brett D Owens; John J Harrast; Shepard R Hurwitz; Terry L Thompson; Jennifer Moriatis Wolf Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Timothy S Mologne; Matthew T Provencher; Kyle A Menzel; Tyler A Vachon; Christopher B Dewing Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christian Konrads; Sebastian Jovic; Kilian Rueckl; Annabel Fenwick; Thomas Barthel; Maximilian Rudert; Piet Plumhoff Journal: J Orthop Date: 2018-05-07