Mean Glenoid Defect Size and Location Associated With Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong correlation between glenoid defect size and recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A better understanding of glenoid defects could lead to improved treatments and outcomes. PURPOSE: To (1) determine the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size, (2) determine the consistency of glenoid defect size and location reported within the literature, (3) define the typical size and location of glenoid defects, and (4) determine whether a correlation exists between defect size and treatment outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies measuring glenoid defect size or location. We excluded studies with defect size requirements or pathology other than anterior instability and studies that included patients with known prior surgery. Our search produced 83 studies; 38 studies provided numeric measurements for glenoid defect size and 2 for defect location. RESULTS: From 1981 to 2000, a total of 5.6% (1 of 18) of the studies reported numeric measurements for glenoid defect size; from 2001 to 2014, the rate of reporting glenoid defects increased to 58.7% (37 of 63). Fourteen studies (n = 1363 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid width, and 9 studies (n = 570 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid surface area. According to 2 studies, the mean glenoid defect orientation was pointing toward the 3:01 and 3:20 positions on the glenoid clock face. CONCLUSION: Since 2001, the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size was only 58.7%. Among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid width, 23.6% of shoulders had a defect between 10% and 25%, and among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid surface area, 44.7% of shoulders had a defect between 5% and 20%. There is significant variability in the way glenoid bone loss is measured, calculated, and reported.

Stability of the Glenohumeral Joint With Combined Humeral Head and Glenoid Defects: A Cadaveric Study.

BACKGROUND: Shoulders with recurrent anterior instability often have combined bony defects of the humeral head and glenoid. Previous studies have looked at only isolated humeral head or glenoid defects. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to define the relationship of combined humeral head and glenoid defects on anterior shoulder instability. Combined bony defects will lead to increased instability compared with an isolated defect, and the "critical" size of humeral head and glenoid defects that need to be addressed to restore stability will be smaller when combined rather than isolated. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eighteen shoulder specimens were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction and 80° of glenohumeral external rotation. Humeral head defect sizes included 6%, 19%, 31%, and 44% of the humeral head diameter. Glenoid defect sizes included 10%, 20%, and 30% of the glenoid width. Outcome measures included percentage of intact stability ratio (%ISR; the stability ratio for a given trial divided by the stability ratio in the intact state for that specimen) and percentage of intact translation (%IT; the distance to dislocation for a given trial divided by the distance to dislocation in the intact state for that specimen). RESULTS: The decrease in %ISR reached statistical significance for humeral head defects of 44%, for glenoid defects of 30%, and for a combined 19% humeral head defect with a 20% glenoid defect (65% mean %ISR). The decrease in %IT reached statistical significance for humeral head defects ≥31%, for glenoid defects ≥20%, and for a combined 19% humeral head defect with a 10% glenoid defect (69% mean %IT). CONCLUSION: In shoulders with combined humeral head and glenoid defects, bony reconstruction may be indicated for humeral head defects as small as 19% of the humeral head diameter and glenoid defects as small as 10% to 20% of the glenoid width, especially if the glenoid defect produces a significant loss of glenoid concavity depth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In shoulders with combined humeral head and glenoid defects, bony reconstruction may be indicated for defect sizes smaller than would be indicated for either defect found in isolation.

Architectural analysis and intraoperative measurements demonstrate the unique design of the multifidus muscle for lumbar spine stability.

BACKGROUND: Muscular instability is an important risk factor for lumbar spine injury and chronic low-back pain. Although the lumbar multifidus muscle is considered an important paraspinal muscle, its design features are not completely understood. The purpose of the present study was to determine the architectural properties, in vivo sarcomere length operating range, and passive mechanical properties of the human multifidus muscle. We hypothesized that its architecture would be characterized by short fibers and a large physiological cross-sectional area and that it would operate over a relatively wide range of sarcomere lengths but would have very stiff passive material properties. METHODS: The lumbar spines of eight cadaver specimens were excised en bloc from T12 to the sacrum. Multifidus muscles were isolated from each vertebral level, permitting the architectural measurements of mass, sarcomere length, normalized fiber length, physiological cross-sectional area, and fiber length-to-muscle length ratio. To determine the sarcomere length operating range of the muscle, sarcomere lengths were measured from intraoperative biopsy specimens that were obtained with the spine in the flexed and extended positions. The material properties of single muscle fibers were obtained from passive stress-strain tests of excised biopsy specimens. RESULTS: The average muscle mass (and standard error) was 146 +/- 8.7 g, and the average sarcomere length was 2.27 +/- 0.06 microm, yielding an average normalized fiber length of 5.66 +/- 0.65 cm, an average physiological cross-sectional area of 23.9 +/- 3.0 cm(2), and an average fiber length-to-muscle length ratio of 0.21 +/- 0.03. Intraoperative sarcomere length measurements revealed that the muscle operates from 1.98 +/- 0.15 microm in extension to 2.70 +/- 0.11 microm in flexion. Passive mechanical data suggested that the material properties of the muscle are comparable with those of muscles of the arm or leg. CONCLUSIONS: The architectural design (a high cross-sectional area and a low fiber length-to-muscle length ratio) demonstrates that the multifidus muscle is uniquely designed as a stabilizer to produce large forces. Furthermore, multifidus sarcomeres are positioned on the ascending portion of the length-tension curve, allowing the muscle to become stronger as the spine assumes a forward-leaning posture.