SECEC Didier Patte Prize 2023: the ABC classification 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-rater and intrarater reliability of the ABC classification. METHODS: All consecutive patients presenting with unidirectional PSI from June 2019 to June 2021 were included in a prospective study. No patients were excluded, leaving a consecutive series of 100 cases of PSI in 91 patients. All recorded clinical and imaging data were 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 4 independent raters (2 experienced shoulder surgeons and 2 orthopedic residents) to analyze the comprehensiveness as well as inter-rater and intrarater reliability of the ABC classification for PSI and to describe differences in characteristics among subtypes. Group A was defined as a first-time singular PSI event <3 months in the past regardless of etiology and is further subdivided into 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 into functional (B1) and structural (B2) dynamic PSI. Group C includes chronic static PSI with posterior humeral decentering that can be either 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 2 expert raters, 16 cases were attributed to group A (8 type A1 and 8 type A2); 64, to group B (33 type B1 and 31 type B2); and 20, to group C (11 type C1 and 9 type C2). The expert raters agreed on the classification subtypes in 99% and 96% of the cases during the first rating and second rating, respectively (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.998 and 0.99, respectively). The intraobserver reliability was excellent for both raters. The beginners reached the same conclusion as the consensus agreement in 94% of the cases (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), groups B2 and C2 (n = 4), groups B1 and C1 (n = 1), and groups A1 and B2 (n = 1). In general, each subtype showed distinctive clinical and imaging characteristics that facilitated 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 recommendations.

Arthroscopic retrograde disimpaction of reverse Hill-Sachs lesions in acute posterior shoulder dislocation type A2 leads to good clinical outcome and close to anatomic reconstruction of the articular surface of the humeral head.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder dislocation frequently results in a centrally located impression fracture of the anterior humeral head, known as reverse Hill-Sachs lesion (RHSL). Depending on its size and location, the RHSL can lead to engagement with the posterior glenoid rim and subsequently redislocation of the shoulder joint. The objective of this study was to present the clinical and radiologic outcomes of anatomic reconstruction of the humeral articular surface using arthroscopically assisted disimpaction in patients with acute posterior shoulder dislocation and an engaging RHSL. METHODS: As part of a retrospective analysis, 9 shoulders in 9 patients (1 female, 8 males) with engaging RHSL following acute posterior shoulder dislocation (type A2 according to the ABC classification) who underwent arthroscopically assisted disimpaction of the RHSL between 2016 and 2023 were identified. Eight patients were included, because 1 patient refused to participate. In all patients, a radiologic analysis of the RHSL was accomplished on preoperative and postoperative cross-sectional imaging including the alpha, beta, and gamma angle as well as depth measurements. The clinical examination included an assessment of the active range of motion, instability tests, and patient-reported outcome measures, such as the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index, the Constant Score, and the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). RESULTS: The mean follow-up period for all 8 patients was 34.4 ± 38 months (range: 6-102 months). The mechanisms of injury included falls (n = 6), traffic accident (n = 1), and convulsive episode (n = 1). The average time from injury to surgery was 6.8 ± 4.7 days (range: 2-16). Patient-reported outcomes at the final follow-up indicated an average WOSI Index of 77.8% ± 17%, a mean Constant Score of 88.3 ± 11 points, and a mean SSV of 87% ± 16%. None of the patients experienced recurrent dislocations during the follow-up period. Post-traumatically, the mean absolute defect depth was 8.4 ± 2.2 mm and the mean gamma angle was 115.8° ± 13°. In the radiologic follow-up, the RHSL depth measurements showed a significant reduction in the mean defect depth from 8.4 ± 2 mm to 1.2 ± 1 mm resulting in an average reduction of the RHSL by 7.1 mm (P < .001). In 3 of the 8 patients (37.5%), the RHSL was not identifiable any more at follow-up and in 5 patients barely identifiable. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopically assisted disimpaction of acute RHSLs leads to close to anatomic reduction of RHSL, achieving a stable shoulder and good clinical outcomes.

The Posterior Shoulder Instability Questionnaire: internal consistency, content and criterion validity, responsiveness, and reliability of a new tool for the assessment of posterior shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability (PSI) is an increasingly recognized cause of shoulder dysfunction particularly in young active patients and certain athlete populations. When evaluating the efficacy of treatment for PSI, specific outcome measures for this population are essential. The aim of the current research was to describe the development and evaluation of a patient reported outcome measure specific for PSI. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design of patients with PSI was used to develop and evaluate the "Posterior Shoulder Instability Questionnaire (PSI-Q)". Items for PSI-Q were generated through an expert focus group and existing questionnaires. Preliminary data analysis identified redundancy of items and resulted in the PSI-Q being refined. The final PSI-Q was evaluated on 128 patients with PSI with a structural lesion requiring surgical intervention. Participants were excluded in the absence of a posterior glenohumeral joint lesion. Internal consistency (Cronbach α and corrected item-total correlation), content validity, criterion validity, responsiveness, and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) were examined. Content validity, criterion validity and responsiveness were compared with the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Scale (MISS) and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The minimum detectable change score (MDC) was calculated. RESULTS: The Cronbach α for the total scale preintervention and postintervention was high (α = 0.97). All five domains (pain, instability/weakness/stiffness, function, occupation and sport, and quality of life and satisfaction) demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for each subsection and the overall score of the scale (α > 0.70). The corrected-item total correlation for each domain was within an acceptable range. The responsiveness of the PSI-Q questionnaire was excellent (effect size, 2.06; standard response mean, 1.34) and was higher than the MISS and WOSI. There were no relevant floor effects and 1 ceiling effect. Reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient(1,1) = 0.93) and the calculated MDC was 10.9 points. DISCUSSION: This study designed and validated a questionnaire specific for measuring symptoms and function in people with structural PSI requiring surgery. The PSI-Q demonstrates good measurement properties and provides an MDC that is useful for researchers and clinicians. In structural PSI, the PSI-Q has a higher responsiveness and more accurately reflects a patient's overall perceived shoulder status compared to current patient reported outcomes for shoulder instability. The psychometric properties of the PSI-Q are still to be determined in a nonsurgical population.

Location and size of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion in patients with traumatic posterior shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: In patients with traumatic posterior shoulder instability, little is known about the precise location and size of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion. METHODS: Forty-nine shoulders of 47 patients with traumatic posterior instability were included in this study based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) a primary or recurrent traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation and (2) the initial event being caused by trauma. Patients were excluded if they had (1) no history of trauma, (2) prior shoulder surgery, (3) no computed tomographic (CT) examination, or (4) were seizure cases. Three-dimensional images of the humerus reconstructed from CT images were reviewed using an image analysis software. The location and size of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion were measured and described on a clock face on the humeral head. RESULTS: The reverse Hill-Sachs lesion was observed in 25 of 49 shoulders (51%). The reverse Hill-Sachs lesions were located between 1:37 and 2:48. The depth of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion (mean ± standard deviation) was 5.8 ± 2.2 mm. The extent of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion was 35° ± 12°. The average orientation of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion, represented by an angle measured from the 12 o'clock position, was 64° ± 12° and pointing toward 2:09 on a clock face. The mean length and width of reverse Hill-Sachs lesions were 9.7 ± 4.7 mm and 11.1 ± 3.6 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: The reverse Hill-Sachs lesion was a semicircular compression fracture located on the anteromedial aspect of the humeral head. Compared with shoulders with anterior shoulder instability, the humeral defect was smaller and located more inferiorly in shoulders with posterior instability.

The Kouvalchouk procedure vs. distal tibial allograft for treatment of posterior shoulder instability: the deltoid "hammock" effect exists.

BACKGROUND: In 1993, Kouvalchouk described an acromial bone block with a pedicled deltoid flap for the treatment of posterior shoulder instability. This procedure provides a "double blocking" effect in that the acromial autograft restores posterior glenoid bone loss and the deltoid flap functions as a muscular "hammock" resembling the sling effect of the conjoint in the Latarjet procedure. The primary aim of this study was to compare the Kouvalchouk procedure to distal tibial allograft (DTA) reconstruction for the management of posterior shoulder instability with associated bone loss, while the secondary aim was to evaluate the deltoid hammock effect. METHODS: Ten upper extremity cadavers were evaluated using a validated shoulder testing apparatus in 0° and 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the scapular plane. Testing was first performed on the normal shoulder state and was followed by the creation of a 20% posterior glenoid defect. Subsequently, the Kouvalchouk and DTA procedures were conducted. Forces of 0N, 5N, 10N, and 15N were applied to the posterior deltoid tendinous insertion on the Kouvalchouk graft along the physiological muscle line-of-action to evaluate the 'hammock" effect of this procedure. Testing was additionally performed on the Kouvalchouk bone graft with the deltoid muscle sectioned from its bony attachment. For all test states, a posteriorly directed force was applied to the humeral head perpendicular to the direction of the glenoid bone defect, with the associated translation quantified using an optical tracking system. The outcome variable was posterior translation of the humeral head at an applied force magnitude of 30N. RESULTS: The Kouvalchouk procedure with the loaded deltoid flap (10N: P = .039 and 15N: P < .001) was significantly better at reducing posterior humeral head translation than the DTA. Overall, increased glenohumeral stability was observed with increased force applied to the posterior deltoid flap in the Kouvalchouk procedure. The 15 N Kouvalchouk was most effective at preventing posterior humeral translation, and the difference was statistically significant compared with the 20% glenoid defect (P = .003), detached Kouvalchouk (P < .001), and 0N Kouvalchouk (P < .001). The 15 N Kouvalchouk procedure restored posterior shoulder joint stability to near normal levels, such that it was not significantly different from the intact state (P = .203). CONCLUSIONS: The Kouvalchouk procedure with load applied to the deltoid was found to be biomechanically superior to the DTA for the management of posterior shoulder instability with associated bone loss. Additionally, the results confirmed the presence and effectiveness of the deltoid "hammock" effect.

Arthroscopic selective approach to dynamic posterior shoulder instability: long-term follow-up insights.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in patients with structural dynamic posterior instability (Moroder classification B2), analyzing factors associated with inferior clinical outcomes or recurrence. The primary hypothesis is that this surgical approach in patients without static structural changes such as excessive glenoid retroversion or dysplastic glenoids will result in satisfactory clinical outcomes and low failure rates. METHODS: We conducted observational retrospective analysis in patients diagnosed with posterior structural dynamic instability who underwent arthroscopic capsulolabral repair. Demographic, clinical, and radiologic characteristics were registered, as well as patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction, complications, and failure, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The association between these outcomes and preoperative factors was investigated. RESULTS: 21 patients were included, with an average age of 38.1 years (range: 27-51 years) and a mean follow-up of 68.7 months (range: 24-127 months). At the final follow-up, the degree of instability was 0 in 19 (90.5%) patients. The overall outcome assessment demonstrated a mean Subjective Shoulder Value score of 82.3 (±15.2), a mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score of 460.1 (±471), and a mean Rowe score of 91.5 (±13). Furthermore, a significant portion of patients returned to sport: 71.4% at any level and 57.1% at the previous level, and 71.4% reported satisfaction with treatment, whereas 5 (23.8%) patients had criteria for failure. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in selected patients with type B2 posterior shoulder instability without static posterior findings yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes and low failure rates.

Retrospective analysis of decision-making in post-traumatic posterior shoulder instability.

PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes in the management of post-traumatic posterior shoulder instability (PSI) with a focus on the decision-making process for operative and conservative treatments. INTRODUCTION: PSI can result from traumatic events, impacting a patient's quality of life. This study delves to better indicate decision-making for operative indication of post-traumatic PSI patients. METHODS: Patients who sustained posterior shoulder dislocations were selected from a single surgeon's database within a five-year period. Cases of degenerative or genetically caused PSI were excluded, resulting in a cohort of 28. Patients were initially managed conservatively but indicated for surgery if they were unable to actively stabilize the shoulder or exhibited bony or cartilage defects confirmed through imaging. If conservative treatment did not yield significant improvements, it was classified as a failure, and operative intervention was recommended. The WOSI Score, ROM, and X-ray were employed to evaluate the success of treatment. RESULTS: Out of the 28 patients, 11 received conservative, seven immediate surgeries, and ten transitioned from conservative to operative treatment. The overall success rate showed 25 good to excellent results. In the persistent conservative treatment group, the initial WOSI score was significantly lower compared to the operative group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that post-traumatic PSI can be successfully managed conservatively with initial low clinical symptoms (low WOSI score) and in the absence of absolute indications for operative treatment. When surgery is necessary, arthroscopic procedures proved effective in achieving good to excellent results in 16 out of 17 cases.

Acromion morphology is associated with glenoid bone loss in posterior glenohumeral instability.

BACKGROUND: The acromion morphology in a shoulder with posterior instability differs from that of a shoulder without glenohumeral instability. Specifically, the acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt, greater posterior acromial height, and less posterior coverage is associated with posterior instability. However, the association between acromion morphology and glenoid bone loss (GBL) in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability has not previously been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether acromial morphology influences the extent or pattern of posterior GBL in a cohort of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study identified 89 shoulders with unidirectional posterior glenohumeral instability. Total area GBL was measured using the best-fit circle method on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Shoulders were divided into 3 groups: (1) no GBL (n = 30), (2) GBL 0%-13.5% (n = 45), or (3) GBL ≥13.5% (n = 14). Acromion measurements were performed on MRI and included acromial tilt, posterior acromial height, anterior acromial coverage, and posterior acromial coverage. RESULTS: Patients without GBL had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5° ± 1.4°) compared with those with 0%-13.5% GBL (64.3° ± 1.5°) or GBL ≥13.5% (67.7° ± 1.8°) (P = .004). Patients without GBL also had greater posterior coverage (65.4° ± 1.7°) compared with those with GBL (60.3° ± 1.4°) (P = .015). Posterior acromion height was not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that an acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt and less posterior coverage is associated with GBL in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability. This is important to consider as posterior GBL has been identified as a risk factor for failure of posterior soft tissue-stabilizing procedures.

Conservative treatment of acute traumatic posterior shoulder dislocations (Type A) is a viable option especially in patients with centred joint, low gamma angle, and middle or old age.

PURPOSE: Purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid- to long-term outcome after conservatively treated first-time posterior shoulder dislocations and to determine structural defects associated with failure. METHODS: In this multi-centric retrospective study, 29 shoulders in 28 patients with first-time acute posterior shoulder dislocation (Type A1 or A2 according to the ABC classification) and available cross-sectional imaging were included. Outcome scores as well as radiological and magnetic resonance imaging were obtained at a mean follow-up of 8.3 ± 2.7 years (minimum: 5 years). The association of structural defects with redislocation, need for secondary surgery, and inferior clinical outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Redislocation occurred in six (21%) shoulders and nine shoulders (31%) underwent secondary surgery due to persistent symptoms. The posttraumatic posterior glenohumeral subluxation was higher in the redislocation group compared to the no redislocation group; however, statistical significance was not reached (61.9 ± 12.5% vs. 50.6 ± 6.4%). Furthermore, a higher adapted gamma angle was observed in the failed conservative treatment group versus the conservative treatment group, similarly without statistically significant difference (97.8° ± 7.2°, vs. 93.3° ± 9.7°). The adapted gamma angle was higher than 90° in all patients of failed conservative therapy and the redislocation group. An older age at the time of dislocation showed a significant correlation with better clinical outcomes (SSV: r = 0.543, p = 0.02; ROWE: r = 0.418, p = 0.035 and WOSI: r = 0.478, p = 0.045). Posterior glenohumeral subluxation after trauma correlated with a worse WOSI (r = - 0.59, p = 0.02) and follow-up posterior glenohumeral decentring (r = 0.68, p = 0.007). The gamma angle (r = 0.396, p = 0.039) and depth of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion (r = 0.437, p = 0.023) correlated significantly with the grade of osteoarthritis at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Conservative treatment is a viable option in patients with an acute traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation with good outcome after mid- and long-term follow-up especially in patients with centred joint, low gamma angle, and middle or old age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Characteristics of functional shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic activation pattern of muscles can cause shoulder instability. We propose to call this pathology functional shoulder instability (FSI). The purpose of this prospective study was to provide an in-detail description of the characteristics of FSI. METHODS: In the year 2017, a total of 36 consecutive cases of FSI presenting to our outpatient clinic were prospectively collected. Diagnostic investigation included a pathology-specific questionnaire, standardized clinical scores, clinical examination, psychological evaluation, video and dynamic fluoroscopy documentation of the instability mechanism, as well as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In a final reviewing process, the material from all collected cases was evaluated and, according to the observed pattern, different subtypes of FSI were determined and compared. RESULTS: Based on the pathomechanism, positional FSI (78%) was distinguished from nonpositional FSI (22%). Controllable positional FSI was observed in 6% of all cases and noncontrollable positional FSI in 72%, whereas controllable and noncontrollable nonpositional FSI were each detected in 11% of the cases. The different subtypes of FSI showed significant differences in all clinical scores (Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index: P = .002, Rowe Score: P = .001, Subjective Shoulder Value: P = .001) and regarding functional impairment (shoulder stability: P < .001, daily activities: P = .001, sports activities: P < .001). Seventy-eight percent had posterior, 17% anterior, and 6% multidirectional instability. Although several patients showed constitutional glenoid shape alterations or soft tissue hyperlaxity, only few patients with acquired minor structural defects were observed. CONCLUSION: FSI can be classified into 4 subtypes based on pathomechanism and volitional control. Depending on the subtype, patients show different degrees of functional impairment. The majority of patients suffer from unidirectional posterior FSI.

Glenoid retroversion is an important factor for humeral head centration and the biomechanics of posterior shoulder stability.

PURPOSE: Glenoid retroversion is a known independent risk factor for recurrent posterior instability. The purpose was to investigate progressive angles of glenoid retroversion and their influence on humeral head centration and posterior translation with intact, detached, and repaired posterior labrum in a cadaveric human shoulder model. METHODS: A total of 10 fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were investigated for this study. After CT- canning, the glenoids were aligned parallel to the floor, with the capsule intact, and the humerus was fixed in 60° of abduction and neutral rotation. Version of the glenoid was created after wedge resection from posterior and fixed with an external fixator throughout the testing. Specimens underwent three conditions: intact, detached, and repaired posterior labrum, while version of the glenoid was set from + 5° anteversion to - 25° retroversion by 5° increments. Within the biomechanical setup, the glenohumeral joint was axially loaded (22 N) to center the joint. At 0° of glenoid version and intact labrum, the initial position was used as baseline and served as point zero of centerization. After cyclic preloading, posterior translation force (20 N) was then applied by a material testing machine, while start and endpoints of the scapula placed on an X-Y table were measured. RESULTS: The decentralization of the humeral head at glenoid version angles of 5°, 10°, 15°, and 20° of retroversion and 5° of anteversion was significantly different (P < 0.001). Every increment of 5° of retroversion led to an additional decentralization of the humeral head overall by (average ± SD) 2.0 mm ± 0.3 in the intact and 2.0 mm ± 0.7 in the detached labrum condition. The repaired showed significantly lower posterior translation compared to the intact condition at 10° (P = 0.012) and 15° (P < 0.01) of retroversion. In addition, CT measured parameters (depth, diameter, and native version) of the glenoid showed no correlation with angle of dislocation of each specimen. CONCLUSION: Bony alignment in terms of glenoid retroversion angle plays an important role in joint centration and posterior translation, especially in retroversion angles greater than 10°. Isolated posterior labrum repair has a significant effect on posterior translation in glenoid retroversion angles of 5° and 10°. Bony correction of glenoid version may be considered to address posterior shoulder instability with retroversion > 15°.

Incidence of posterior shoulder instability and trends in surgical reconstruction: a 22-year population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of posterior shoulder instability (PSI) in the general population is not well defined. This study aimed to define the population-based incidence of PSI and describe trends in incidence and surgery rates. METHODS: The study population included 143 patients (16 females, 127 males) diagnosed with new-onset PSI between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2015. Medical records were reviewed to extract patient data. Age- and sex-specific incidence rates were calculated and adjusted to the 2010 United States population. Poisson regression was performed to examine trends by timeline, sex, and age. RESULTS: Age- and sex- adjusted annual incidence of PSI was 4.64 per 100,000 person-years, and posterior dislocation was 1.30 per 100,000 person-years. Peak PSI incidence for males and females was at 14 to 19 years (31.82 and 5.23 per 100,000 person-years). PSI incidence was higher in males than females (8.86 vs. 1.07 per 100,000 person-years, P < .001). The 5-year cumulative risk of surgery for patients with PSI was 53.1% between 1996 and 2002, 59.9% between 2003 and 2008, and 87.5% between 2009 and 2015. Patients with PSI between 2009 and 2015 had a significantly increased rate of surgery (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.6; P = .001) compared with those between 1996 and 2002. CONCLUSION: The age- and sex- adjusted incidence of PSI in the general population was 4.64 per 100,000 person-years. There is a significantly greater incidence of PSI in males than females, with both sexes peaking at 14 to 19 years and incidence rates remaining elevated throughout the third and fourth decades of life. The incidence of PSI remained stable over time; however, the rate of surgical intervention increased significantly, from 53.1% of patients between 1996 and 2002 to 87.5% of patients between 2009 and 2015.

Arthroscopic posterior bone block stabilization-early results of an effective procedure for the recurrent posterior instability.

PURPOSE: In the current study the clinical outcome of an arthroscopic posterior bone block augmentation in combination with a posterior capsular repair was investigated. METHODS: Twenty-four shoulders (18 patients) with unidirectional posterior shoulder instability were treated with an arthroscopic posterior bone block and capsular reconstruction. The mean follow up period was 26 months. The patients were examined pre- and postoperatively using the Constant-Murley score, the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score and Western Ontario Shoulder index. RESULTS: At the follow up examination 21 shoulders were classified to be stable, while one patient reported a single redislocation and two further patients reported recurrent posterior subluxation or posterior apprehension. Thus, the recurrence rate was defined to be 12.5%. The Rowe-Score significantly improved from 50 points preoperatively to 75 points postoperatively (p = 0.0003). The WOSI-score significantly improved from 37% preoperatively to 66% postoperatively (p = 0.0001). Revision surgery commonly was required for screw removal. CONCLUSION: The early clinical results of this arthroscopic bone block augmentation and capsular repair are promising. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

[The ABC guide for the treatment of posterior shoulder instability]. / Das ABC der posterioren Schulterstabilisierung.

BACKGROUND: Posterior glenohumeral instability (PGHI) is an often unrecognized or misdiagnosed type of shoulder instability due to its heterogenic clinical and radiological presentation. CLASSIFICATION: The ABC classification for PGHI is based on the different pathomechanisms and recommended treatment standards and is therefore a guide to finding the correct diagnosis and therapy for affected patients. There are different types of PGHI: A (first time), B (dynamic), C (static). These groups are further classified based on pathomechanical principles: A1: subluxation, A2: dislocation; B1: functional, B2: structural; C1: constitutional, C2: acquired. THERAPY: In patients with type 1 PGHI (A1, B1, C1) conservative treatment is recommended while in patients with type 2 PGHI (A2, B2, C2) surgical treatment can be considered based on structural defects, clinical symptoms, chronicity, age, functional demand, and patient-specific health status. In addition it has to be considered, that there is the possibility of coexisting or overlapping subtypes as well as the chance of progression from one category into another over time.

Results of an open posterior bone block procedure for recurrent posterior shoulder instability after a short- and long-time follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to analyse and compare the clinical and radiological results after open posterior bone block procedure at long- (LT) and short-term (ST) follow-up. The hypothesis was that placement of a bone block at the posterior glenoid rim in a technique of extending the glenoid surface will create permanent joint stability even in cases with hyperlaxity without a clinically relevant loss of motion or increase in osteoarthritis. METHODS: Fifteen consecutive shoulders with recurrent posterior dislocation were evaluated clinically and radiologically. The Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, Walch-Duplay score and the Constant-Murley score were used for clinical evaluation. The patients were categorized according to their follow-up period as either ST follow-up (min 12 months) or LT follow-up (min 42 months). RESULTS: The clinical results showed no significant difference between ST (9) and LT (6) with good to very good overall results in the subjective as well as the objective scores (CS, RS, WDS). At LT, most patients felt mild to minor pain under strain. The difference in pain between the groups was not significant. Active ranges of motion and strength assessments were normal in all cases. In one case, recurrent dislocations occurred after bone graft resorption 6 months post-operatively. Only one patient presented mild osteoarthritis, without further progress at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The open posterior bone block procedure can be a successful treatment option for recurrent posterior shoulder instability at ST and LT follow-up. This series showed a low rate of recurrent dislocations without development or progression of osteoarthritis. Since soft tissue procedures do not always provide satisfying results, the posterior bone block augmentation presents a reliable technique for the treatment of symptomatic posterior instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case Series, Treatment Study, Level IV.

The split portal: Description of a new accessory posterior portal for arthroscopic shoulder instability procedures.

PURPOSE: Open approach to the posterior shoulder during bone block for posterior shoulder instability is challenging. Anatomical study was performed to identify landmarks of a portal, avoiding soft tissue damage, between the infraspinatus (IS) and teres minor (TM) muscles and distant from the supra-scapular nerve (SSN) for arthroscopic shoulder bone block. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulder specimens were used. The arthroscope was introduced through the soft point (SP). A guide wire was placed through the SP, in the rotator interval direction. A posterior open dissection exposed the split between the IS and TM. A new guide wire was placed into the split, parallel to the first wire, to locate the new posterior arthroscopic approach. Ten distances were measured to define the safe position. RESULTS: The mean values were: SP to split IS-TM: 2 ± 0.2 (2-2.8); spinal bone to split IS-TM: 5 ± 0.5 (3-6.2); split IS-TM to posterior glenoid 6 o'clock: 1.3 ± 0.3 (0.6-1.6), 9 o'clock: 1.5 ± 0.3 (1-1.9), and 12 o'clock: 2 ± 0.1 (2.1-2.4); SSN to posterior glenoid 6 o'clock: 2.4 ± 0.2 (2.1-2.6), 9 o'clock: 1.7 ± 0.1 (1.5-1.8), and 12 o'clock: 1.5 ± 0.3 (1.2-2.1); and SSN to split IS-TM: 2 ± 0.3 (1.2-2.1). CONCLUSION: This preliminary anatomical study described a posterior arthroscopic portal located 2 cm under the SP, parallel to the SP portal direction, and finishing between 7 and 8 o'clock at the posterior rim of the glenoid. For arthroscopic shoulder bone block, this portal can avoid muscle and SSN lesions.

Bone block procedures in posterior shoulder instability.

PURPOSE: Posterior shoulder dislocation is often associated with bone defects. Surgical treatment is often necessary to address these lesions. The aim of the present systematic review was to analyse the available literature concerning bone block procedures in the treatment of bone deficiencies following posterior dislocation. In addition, the methodology of the articles has been evaluated through the Coleman methodology score. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the keywords "posterior shoulder instability", "posterior shoulder dislocation", "bone loss", "bone defect", "bone block", and "bone graft" with no limit regarding the year of publication. All English-language articles were evaluated using the Coleman methodology score. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were identified, and 13 articles met inclusion criteria. The initial cohort included 208 shoulders, and 182 were reviewed at an average follow-up of 72.7 months (±55.2). The average Coleman score was 57.2 (±8.0). The most lacking domains were the size of study population, the type of study, and the procedure for assessing outcomes. All the articles showed an increase in the outcome scores. Radiographic evaluation revealed degenerative changes such as osteoarthritis and graft lysis in most of the series. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the lack of studies with good methodological quality. However, bone grafting is a reliable option since significant improvement in all scores is reported. Although a low incidence of recurrence is generally described, there are concerns that the results may deteriorate over time as evidenced by graft lysis and glenohumeral osteoarthritis in up to one-third of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.

High frequency of posterior and combined shoulder instability in young active patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology and demographics of surgically treated shoulder instability stratified by direction. We hypothesized that there would be an increased frequency of posterior and combined shoulder instability in our population compared with published literature. Secondarily, we assessed preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports to determine how accurately they detected the pathology addressed at surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at a single facility during a 46-month period. The study included all patients who underwent an operative intervention for shoulder instability. The instability in each case was characterized as isolated anterior, isolated posterior, or combined, according to pathologic findings confirmed at arthroscopy. The findings were retrospectively compared with official MRI reports to determine the accuracy of MRI in characterizing the clinically and operatively confirmed diagnosis. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 231 patients (221 men, 10 women) underwent stabilization for shoulder instability over 46 months. Patients were a mean age of 26.0 years. There were 132 patients (57.1%) with isolated anterior instability, 56 (24.2%) with isolated posterior instability, and 43 (18.6%) with combined instability. Overall, MRI findings completely characterized the clinical diagnosis and arthroscopic pathology in 149 of 219 patients (68.0%). CONCLUSION: The rate of posterior and combined instability in an active population is more common than has been previously reported, making up more than 40% of operatively treated instability, including a previously unreported incidence of 19% for combined instabilities. In addition, MRI was often incomplete or inaccurate in detecting the pathology eventually treated at surgery.

Diagnosis and treatment of posterior shoulder instability based on the ABC classification.

Posterior shoulder instability (PSI) is less common than anterior shoulder instability, accounting for 2-12% of total shoulder instability cases. However, a much higher frequency of PSI has been recently indicated, suggesting that PSI accounts for up to 24% of all young and active patients who are surgically treated for shoulder instability. This differentiation might be explained due to the frequent misinterpretation of vague symptoms, as PSI does not necessarily present as a recurrent posterior instability event, but often also as mere shoulder pain during exertion, limited range of motion, or even as yet asymptomatic concomitant finding. In order to optimize current treatment, it is crucial to identify the various clinical presentations and often unspecific symptoms of PSI, ascertain the causal instability mechanism, and accurately diagnose the subgroup of PSI. This review should guide the reader to correctly identify PSI, providing diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies.

Current Concepts in Assessment and Management of Failed Posterior Labral Repair.

Recurrent posterior shoulder instability after primary repair is uncommon, but presents a challenging clinical scenario. Most revisions in failed labral repair were associated with glenoid bone morphology related to critical bone loss, retroversion, or dysplasia. A variety of treatment options exist which include revision labral repair with or without capsular plication, glenoid osteotomy, humeral rotational osteotomy, or glenoid bone augmentation. No single technique has been shown to be superior and each technique has strengths and limitations. Therefore, thoughtful evaluation and planning is critical to address each patient's individual pathology to maximize success after revision surgery.