Arthroscopic Trillat technique for chronic post-traumatic anterior shoulder instability: outcomes at 2 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of a new arthroscopic Trillat technique at a 2-year follow-up. Our current hypothesis was that this technique could be used for the effective treatment of chronic post-traumatic unidirectional anterior shoulder instability, and that the recurrence and complication rates, external rotation, and functional outcomes would be as good as those of the reference technique. METHODS: Between April 2012 and August 2016, all patients older than 16 years who underwent the arthroscopic Trillat technique for unidirectional chronic post-traumatic anterior shoulder instability at the Dijon University Hospital (France), after the failure of well-conducted medical and rehabilitation treatment with at least 24 months of follow-up, were included. Criteria for noninclusion were association with posterior and/or inferior instabilities, voluntary instabilities, and glenoid bone loss greater than 20%. Patients attended follow-up with their surgeon before the intervention, in the immediate postoperative period, at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and then by an independent observer for the last evaluation. Patients were then examined clinically with scores such as Constant, Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores, and subjective shoulder value, for shoulder range of motion, and radiographically (anteroposterior and Lamy's lateral x-rays of the operated shoulder). RESULTS: Forty-nine patients and 52 shoulders were included, with a mean follow-up of 40 months (range, 24-71 months). The recurrence rate of instability was 3.8% (2 of 52). No conversion to arthrotomy was necessary. No intraoperative complications, postoperative neurological lesions, or sepsis were observed. The mean Constant score was 92.1 (77.5-100) points, Walch-Duplay 82.9 (40-100), Rowe 81.73 (5-100), and subjective shoulder value 86.1 (50-100) at the last follow-up. The arm at side external rotation limitation averaged 8.4° (-25° to 40°) and the external rotation with 90° arm abduction limitation 0.34° (-5° to 15°). Forty-one patients (79%) resumed their sports activity at the same level. Fifty patients (96%) were satisfied to very satisfied. One patient developed nonunion of the coracoid process and subsequently underwent a Latarjet procedure with a good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The arthroscopic Trillat procedure offers good outcomes as a first-line treatment for chronic anterior post-traumatic glenohumeral instability. It should be excluded in cases of glenoid loss greater than 20%.

Subcapularis tendon tear: A structure-based arthroscopic description.

INTRODUCTION: Subscapularis (SSC) tendons differ from supraspinatus tendons, although both have similar histologic structure comprising two layers with distinct collagen fiber organization. HYPOTHESIS: The partial/full-thickness tear classification for the supraspinatus based on tendon structure can be applied to the subscapularis tendon on objective criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The present study used 100 films of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair involving SSC lesion. Lesions were reported on 3 objective criteria: horizontal superior tendon edge visibility, lesser tuberosity bone exposure, and lateral tendon edge visibility. Combining the three distinguishes deep, superficial or interstitial partial tear versus full-thickness tear. Degree of retraction was also noted. RESULTS: Forty-six of the 73 partial lesions involved the deep articular layer, which was often retracted, but conserving the horizontal superior tendon edge and thus misleadingly suggesting SSC integrity; 23 were interstitial, without detachment from the lesser tuberosity; 4 involved only the superficial layer. Full-thickness tears were always retracted, with loss of horizontal superior tendon edge, visibility of the lateral tendon edge and presence of comma sign. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was satisfactory. DISCUSSION - CONCLUSION: Like in superior cuff tear, a structure-based classification can be made of SSC lesions on objective criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The Invisible MGHL Test: Diagnostic Value and Benefits for the Repair of Retracted Subscapularis Tears.

BACKGROUND: Some full-thickness subscapularis tendon tears and partial tears of the deep layer are difficult to characterize, leading to misdiagnosis. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between displacement of the middle glenohumeral ligament (MGHL) and retracted tears of the subscapularis tendon as a possible test to improve diagnosis. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Videos (N = 100) recorded during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair involving a torn subscapularis tendon were analyzed retrospectively to assess the association between the MGHL test (nonvisibility of the MGHL) and other objective anatomic criteria. The invisible MGHL test was defined as positive if the MGHL was initially nonvisible in the beach-chair position and appeared only when the subscapularis tendon was pulled back into position by using a 30° arthroscope from the standard posterior portal. The parameters considered during the initial exploration were (1) visibility of the horizontal part of the subscapularis tendon; (2) visibility of the MGHL in its usual position, crossing the superior border of the subscapularis tendon; (3) exposure of the lateral border of the subscapularis tendon (full-thickness retracted tear); and (4) complete or partial exposure of the lesser tuberosity of the humerus. Tendon retraction was evaluated in 3 stages according to the Patte classification. RESULTS: The invisible MGHL test result was positive in 45% of cases. It was positive in 6% of cases (2 of 31) when there was no subscapularis tendon retraction and in 62% of cases (43 of 69) when there was partial or complete retraction (P < .001). The invisible MGHL test was significantly associated with the width of the tear (P < .001) and exposure of the lateral border of the subscapularis tendon (full-thickness retracted tear, P = .0002). After repair, the MGHL was visible in its anatomic position in 96% of cases. CONCLUSION: A positive invisible MGHL test is an alternative indication of subscapularis tendon retraction, and the relocation of the MGHL can also be used after repair to assess the proper anatomic repositioning of the subscapularis tendon.

The Middle Glenohumeral Ligament Test for the Diagnosis of Subscapularis Lesions.

Arthroscopy has improved the diagnosis of subscapularis tendon lesions, and the outcomes of arthroscopic repair are satisfactory. Nonetheless, the diagnosis of some partial- and full-thickness subscapularis tears remains challenging. The middle glenohumeral ligament inserts distally into the articular surface of the subscapularis tendon and can be displaced when the subscapularis tendon is torn with retraction. This article describes the middle glenohumeral ligament test, which allows retracted lesions of the subscapularis tendon to be detected even if the superior edge is visible and normally placed. In addition, it allows control of the subscapularis tendon repair.

Is distal locking screw necessary for intramedullary nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures? A comparative cohort study.

PURPOSE: The gold standard for intramedullary nailing (IMN) in humeral shaft fracture treatment is bipolar interlocking. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes in two cohorts of patients treated with IMN with or without distal interlocking. We hypothesized that there was no significant difference between isolated proximal interlocking and bipolar interlocking in terms of consolidation and clinical results. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one acute humeral shaft fractures were retrospectively included in group WDI (without distal interlocking screw, n = 74) or in group DI (with distal interlocking screw, n = 47). One hundred six patients (87.60%) could be verified by an X-ray, and 63 (52.07%) could be examined clinically. Fracture union at 6 months was the primary outcome, and the second was the final clinical outcome for shoulder and elbow after at least 6 months of follow-up. Pain, operating time, and radiation time were also analyzed. RESULTS: The two groups were not significantly different for population, fractures, or immobilization duration. No significant difference was found for bone union (WDI 89.06% vs DI 83.33%, p = 0.51), shoulder or elbow functional outcomes, or pain. However, there were significant differences in advantage to the WDI group for operating time (WDI 63.09 ± 21.30 min vs DI 87.96 ± 30.11 min, p < 0.01) and fluoroscopy time (WDI 59.06 ± 30.30 s vs DI 100.36 ± 48.98 s, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Thus, it seems that there were no significant differences between proximal unipolar and bipolar interlocking for humeral shaft fractures in terms of consolidation and clinical outcomes. WDI avoided the additional operating time and fluoroscopy time and risks linked to DI.