The Global Track Concept for Assessment of Engaging Hill-Sachs Defects in Anterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept is used to determine preoperatively whether a Hill-Sachs defect is engaging or not. Currently, the glenoid track concept relies on measurements of bony structures as well as on the confines and elasticity of the rotator cuff as a reference point, which varies extensively among individuals and therefore limits the reliability and accuracy of this concept. PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of the global track concept, which determines the angular distance of the Hill-Sachs defect from the center of the articular surface of the humeral head as a new reference point with the help of an automated image analysis software and 3-dimensional analysis of the humeral head. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with different sizes of Hill-Sachs defects were evaluated manually by 2 orthopaedic surgeons independently using the software OsiriX as well as automatically by using a dedicated prototype software (ImFusion). Obtained manual and automated measurements included the Hill-Sachs length, Hill-Sachs width, and Hill-Sachs depth of the defect; the Hill-Sachs interval (HSI); and the glenoid width for the glenoid track concept, as well as the angular distance of the Hill-Sachs defect from the center of the articular surface of the humeral head (global track concept). The reliability of the different measurement techniques was compared by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: There was a significant difference for all obtained parameters comparing manual and automatic measurements. For manually obtained parameters, measurements referring to bony boundaries (glenoid width, Hill-Sachs length, and Hill-Sachs width) showed good to excellent agreement (ICC, 0.86, 0.82, and 0.62, respectively), while measurements referring to soft tissue boundaries (HSI and glenoid track; ICC, 0.56 and 0.53, respectively) or not directly identifiable reference points (center of articular surface and global track) only showed fair reliability (ICC middle excursion, 0.42). When the same parameters were measured with the help of an automated software, good reliability for the glenoid track concept and excellent reliability for the global track concept in the middle excursion were achieved. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that the more complex global track measurements of humeral defects are more reliable than the current standard HSI and glenoid track measurements. However, this is only true when automated software is used to perform the measurements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Future studies using the new proposed method in combination with an automated software need to be conducted to determine critical threshold values for defects prone to engagement.

Differences in Osseous Shoulder Morphology, Scapulothoracic Orientation, and Muscle Volume in Patients With Constitutional Static Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type C1) Compared With Healthy Controls.

BACKGROUND: Constitutional static posterior humeral decentering (type C1 according to ABC Classification) has been recognized as a pre-osteoarthritic deformity that may lead to early-onset posterior decentering osteoarthritis at a young age. Therefore, it is important to identify possible associations of this pathologic shoulder condition to find more effective treatment options. PURPOSE: To perform a comprehensive analysis of all parameters reported to be associated with a C1 shoulder-including the osseous shoulder morphology, scapulothoracic orientation, and the muscle volume of the shoulder girdle in a single patient cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective, comparative study was conducted analyzing 17 C1 shoulders in 10 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the complete depiction of the trunk from the base of the skull to the iliac crest, including both humeri. The mean age of the patients was 33.5 years, and all patients were men. To measure and compare the osseous shoulder morphology (glenoid version, glenoid offset, humeral torsion, anterior acromial coverage, posterior acromial coverage, posterior acromial height, and posterior acromial tilt) and scapulothoracic orientation (scapular protraction, scapular internal rotation, scapular upward rotation, scapular translation, scapular tilt, and thoracic kyphosis), these patients were matched 1 to 4 according their age, sex, and affected side with shoulder-healthy patients who had received positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography. To measure and compare the muscle volume of the shoulder girdle (subscapularis, infraspinatus/teres minor, supraspinatus, trapezius, deltoid, latissimus dorsi/teres major, pectoralis major, and pectoralis minor), patients were matched 1 to 2 with patients who had received PET-MRI. Patients with visible pathologies of the upper extremities were excluded. RESULTS: The C1 group had a significantly higher glenoid retroversion, increased anterior glenoid offset, reduced humeral retrotorsion, increased anterior acromial coverage, reduced posterior acromial coverage, increased posterior acromial height, and increased posterior acromial tilt compared with controls (P < .05). Decreased humeral retrotorsion showed significant correlation with higher glenoid retroversion (r = -0.742; P < .001) and higher anterior glenoid offset (r = -0.757; P < .001). Significant differences were found regarding less scapular upward rotation, less scapular tilt, and less thoracic kyphosis in the C1 group (P < .05). The muscle volume of the trapezius and deltoid was significantly higher in the C1 group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patients with C1 shoulders differ from healthy controls regarding osseous scapular and humeral morphology, scapulothoracic orientation, and shoulder girdle muscle distribution. These differences may be crucial in understanding the delicate balance of glenohumeral centering.

The latissimus dorsi creates a dynamic track for the inferior angle of the scapula during arm abduction in humans.

BACKGROUND: The importance of several scapulothoracic muscles, including trapezius and serratus anterior, in maintaining physiological scapula kinematics has been highlighted in the past. However, the relationship between the scapula and the latissimus dorsi muscle remains unclear. Our clinical surgical observation is that the latissimus dorsi does not directly attach but rather runs superficial to the inferior angle of the scapula. Based on this observation, we hypothesise that the latissimus dorsi creates a dynamic track on which the scapula glides under the muscle belly during elevation of the arm, creating the latissimus-scapula overlap (LSO). METHODS: All consecutive patients who had a whole-body computed tomography scan (CT) in case of polytrauma evaluation between 2018 and 2021, with complete depiction of the scapula and latissimus dorsi muscle, were analysed. 150 shoulders in 90 patients with arms up were matched according to their age (within five years), gender, and affected side with 150 shoulders in 88 patients with arms down. Patients with pathologies of the upper extremities or thorax that potentially could alter LSO measurements were excluded. LSO was calculated as a ratio of the measured area of the latissimus dorsi projection on the scapula and the total scapula area. RESULTS: The mean age of the 178 patients (48 females; 13 males) was 60 years. The arms-up group showed a significantly higher LSO than the arms-down group (19.9 ± 6.3% vs. 2.7 ± 2.2%; p < 0.0001). In the arms-up group, approximately one fifth of the scapula was overlapped inferiorly by the muscle belly of the latissimus dorsi, contrary to the almost non-existing LSO in the arms-down group. CONCLUSION: With arms up, humans show a significantly higher LSO in comparison to arms down indicating that the latissimus dorsi indeed creates a dynamic track on which the scapula is forced to travel during abduction of the arm. This finding of increased LSO during the elevation of the arm warrants further consideration of the role of the latissimus dorsi in scapula kinematics and potentially scapular dyskinesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level two diagnostic study.

Reliability of Manual Measurements Versus Semiautomated Software for Glenoid Bone Loss Quantification in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Background: The presence of glenoid bone defects is indicative in the choice of treatment for patients with anterior shoulder instability. In contrast to traditional linear- and area-based measurements, techniques such as the consideration of glenoid concavity have been proposed and validated. Purpose: To compare the reliability of linear (1-dimensional [1D]), area (2-dimensional [2D]), and concavity (3-dimensional [3D]) measurements to quantify glenoid bone loss performed manually and to analyze how automated measurements affect reliability. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Computed tomography images of 100 patients treated for anterior shoulder instability with differently sized glenoid defects were evaluated independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons manually using conventional software (OsiriX; Pixmeo) as well as automatically with a dedicated prototype software program (ImFusion Suite; ImFusion). Parameters obtained included 1D (defect diameter, best-fit circle diameter), 2D (defect area, best-fit circle area), and 3D (bony shoulder stability ratio) measurements. Mean values and reliability as expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) were compared between the manual and automated measurements. Results: When manually obtained, the measurements showed almost perfect agreement for 1D parameters (ICC = 0.83), substantial agreement for 2D parameters (ICC = 0.79), and moderate agreement for the 3D parameter (ICC = 0.48). When measurements were aided by automated software, the agreement between raters was almost perfect for all parameters (ICC = 0.90 for 1D, 2D, and 3D). There was a significant difference in mean values between manually versus automatically obtained measurements for 1D, 2D, and 3D parameters (P < .001 for all). Conclusion: While more advanced measurement techniques that take glenoid concavity into account are more accurate in determining the biomechanical relevance of glenoid bone loss, our study showed that the reliability of manually performed, more complex measurements was moderate.

SECEC Didier Patte Prize 2023: The ABC of Posterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: The ABC classification has recently been proposed as a comprehensive classification system for posterior shoulder instability (PSI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the comprehensiveness as well as inter- and intra-rater reliability of the ABC classification. METHODS: In a prospective study all consecutive patients presenting with unidirectional PSI from June 2019 to June 2021 were included. No patients were excluded, leaving a consecutive series of 100 cases in 91 patients. All recorded clinical and imaging data was used to create anonymized clinical case vignettes, which were evaluated twice according to the ABC classification at the end of the recruitment period in random sequential order by four independent raters, two experienced shoulder surgeons and two orthopedic residents in order to analyze the comprehensiveness as well as inter- and intra-rater reliability of the ABC classification for posterior shoulder instability and to describe differences in characteristics among subtypes. Group A was defined as first-time singular posterior shoulder instability event less than 3 months in the past regardless of etiology and is further subdivided in Type 1 and Type 2 depending on the occurrence of a subluxation (A1) or dislocation (A2). Group B comprises recurrent dynamic PSI regardless of time since onset and is further subdivided by the cause of instability in functional (B1) and structural (B2) dynamic PSI. Group C includes chronic static PSI with posterior humeral decentering that can either be constitutional (C1) or acquired (C2). RESULTS: None of the cases was deemed unsuitable to be classified based on the proposed system by the observers. After consensus agreement between the two experts 16 cases were attributed to group A (A1: 8, A2: 8), 64 to group B (B1: 33, B2: 31), and 20 to group C (C1: 11, C2: 9). The expert raters agreed in 99% and 96% of the cases on the classification subtypes during the first and second rating (ICC: 0.998 and ICC: 0.99). The intraobserver reliability was excellent for both raters. The beginners reached the same conclusion as the consensus agreement in 94% (ICC: 0.99) and 89% of the cases (ICC: 0.97) during the first round and 94% each (ICC: 0.97) during the second round. The intraobserver reliability was excellent for both beginners. Overall, discrepancies between raters were found between groups B1 and B2 (n=14), B2 and C2 (n=4), B1 and C1 (n=1), as well as A1 and B2 (n=1). In general, each subtype shows distinctive clinical and imaging characteristics that facilitate the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The presented ABC classification for PSI is a comprehensive classification with a high reliability and reproducibility. However, a gradual transition and potential progression between the subtypes of PSI must be considered. The reliable distinction between different subtypes of PSI based on etiology and pathomechanism provides a standardized basis for future investigations on treatment recommendation.

Functional and Radiologic Outcomes of Degenerative Versus Traumatic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears Involving the Supraspinatus Tendon.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is among the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Several factors-including age, sex, and tear severity-have been identified as predictors for outcome after repair. The influence of the tear etiology on functional and structural outcome remains controversial. PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of tear etiology (degenerative vs traumatic) on functional and structural outcomes in patients with supraspinatus tendon tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients undergoing ARCR from 19 centers were prospectively enrolled between June 2020 and November 2021. Full-thickness, nonmassive tears involving the supraspinatus tendon were included. Tears were classified as degenerative (chronic shoulder pain, no history of trauma) or traumatic (acute, traumatic onset, no previous shoulder pain). Range of motion, strength, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) were assessed before (baseline) and 6 and 12 months after ARCR. The Subjective Shoulder Value and the OSS were also determined at the 24-month follow-up. Repair integrity after 12 months was documented, as well as additional surgeries up to the 24-month follow-up. Tear groups were compared using mixed models adjusted for potential confounding effects. RESULTS: From a cohort of 973 consecutive patients, 421 patients (degenerative tear, n = 230; traumatic tear, n = 191) met the inclusion criteria. The traumatic tear group had lower mean baseline OSS and CMS scores but significantly greater score changes 12 months after ARCR (OSS, 18 [SD, 8]; CMS, 34 [SD,18] vs degenerative: OSS, 15 [SD, 8]; CMS, 22 [SD, 15]) (P < .001) and significantly higher 12-month overall scores (OSS, 44 [SD, 5]; CMS, 79 [SD, 9] vs degenerative: OSS, 42 [SD, 7]; CMS, 76 [SD, 12]) (P≤ .006). At the 24-month follow-up, neither the OSS (degenerative, 44 [SD, 6]; traumatic, 45 [SD, 6]; P = .346) nor the rates of repair failure (degenerative, 14 [6.1%]; traumatic 12 [6.3%]; P = .934) and additional surgeries (7 [3%]; 7 [3.7%]; P = .723) differed between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with degenerative and traumatic full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tears who had ARCR show satisfactory short-term functional results. Although patients with traumatic tears have lower baseline functional scores, they rehabilitate over time and show comparable clinical results 1 year after ARCR. Similarly, degenerative and traumatic rotator cuff tears show comparable structural outcomes, which suggests that degenerated tendons retain healing potential.

Arthroscopic Posterior Capsulolabral Repair With Suture-First Versus Anchor-First Technique in Patients With Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type B2): Clinical Midterm Follow-up.

Background: Isolated soft tissue injuries of the posterior capsulolabral complex can be addressed arthroscopically, with various anchor systems available for repair. Purpose: To evaluate clinical and patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in patients with posterior shoulder instability (PSI) and to compare differences in outcomes between patients treated with a suture-first technique (PushLock anchor) and an anchor-first technique (FiberTak all-suture anchor). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 32 patients with dynamic structural PSI (type B2 according to the ABC classification) treated with an arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair. After a mean follow-up time of 4.8 ± 3.4 years (range, 2-11) patients were evaluated clinically, and standardized outcome scores were obtained for the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC), patient satisfaction (0-5 [best]), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0-10 [worst]). Results: The overall satisfaction level with the outcome of the surgery was 4.6 ± 0.5 (range, 4-5). No patient suffered from instability events. The mean VAS level for pain was 0.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-4) at rest and 1.9 ± 2.0 (range, 0-6) during motion. The mean SSV was 80 ± 17 (range, 30-100), the mean postoperative WOSI score 75% ± 19% (range, 18-98), the mean Rowe score 78 ± 20 (range, 10-100), and the mean KJOC score was 81 ± 18 (range, 40-100) for the entire cohort. There was no significant difference between the techniques with regard to range of motion, strength, or clinical outcome scores. Conclusion: Arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair was a satisfactory method to treat structural PSI type B2 with regard to stability, pain relief, and functional restoration. The majority of patients had good outcomes. No differences in outcomes were observed between the anchor-first and suture-first techniques.

Arthroscopic Posterior Articular Coverage and Shift (PACS) Procedure for Treatment of Preosteoarthritic Constitutional Static Posterior Shoulder Instability (Type C1).

BACKGROUND: Different joint-preserving techniques for treatment of preosteoarthritic, constitutional static (type C1) posterior shoulder instability (PSI) have been proposed, including posterior glenoid open wedge osteotomy and bone graft augmentation. However, the techniques are demanding, the reported complication and reoperation rates are high, and posterior decentering cannot reliably be reversed. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological longitudinal outcomes of patients with type C1 PSI after arthroscopic posterior articular coverage and shift (PACS) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database with longitudinal follow-up including 14 shoulders in 13 patients who underwent an arthroscopic PACS procedure for symptomatic preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior instability (type C1) with previous failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were clinically evaluated before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively in terms of satisfaction and pain levels as well as standardized physical examination, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score, Constant score, and Rowe score. Preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained in all patients. A paired 2-sample t test was used to compare changes in continuous variable parameters over time. Correlation analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: All outcome scores and the pain level improved significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively, and the improvement was sustained over the follow-up period of 2 years (pain level, 6.4 preoperatively vs 3.3 at 2 years, P < .001; SSV, 40 vs 70, P = .001; WOSI, 33 vs 56, P = .001; Constant, 70 vs 79, P = .049; Rowe, 52 vs 76, P < .001). The mean glenohumeral and scapulohumeral subluxation indices were significantly lower in the early postoperative period compared with preoperative measurements (glenohumeral, 52% ± 6% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .02; scapulohumeral, 70% ± 8%; vs 77% ± 9%, P = .002, respectively); however, they returned to baseline values at follow-up (57% ± 7% vs 58% ± 10%, P = .7; 75% ± 6% vs 77% ± 9%, P = .4, respectively). A high scapulohumeral subluxation index, excessive glenoid retroversion, and increased posterior positioning of the humeral head in relation to scapular blade axis and older age were correlated with worse clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Over the follow-up period of 2 years, the PACS procedure significantly improved outcome scores in patients who had preosteoarthritic constitutional static posterior shoulder instability, especially in younger patients with less severe glenoid retroversion and posterior decentering of the humeral head. However, similar to other techniques, the PACS procedure needs to be considered a symptomatic therapy that does not reverse the underlying cause or stop the progressive pathology.