Contribution of the Bony Bankart in Calculating Glenoid Bone Loss.
Bankart fracture
general sports trauma
imaging computed tomography
instability
shoulder
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
received:
31
01
2023
accepted:
13
02
2023
medline:
24
5
2023
pubmed:
24
5
2023
entrez:
24
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Determining the magnitude of glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability is an important step in guiding management. Most calculations to estimate the bone loss do not include the bony Bankart fragment. However, if it can be reduced and adequately fixed, the estimation of bone loss may be decreased. To derive a simple equation to calculate the surface area of the bony fragment in Bankart fractures. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. A total of 26 patients suspected of having clinically significant bone loss underwent computed tomography imaging preoperatively, and the percentage of glenoid bone loss (%BL) was approximated with imaging software using a freehand region of interest area measurement with and without the inclusion of the bony Bankart fragment. By assuming this bony fragment as a hemi-ellipse with height, H, and thickness, d, we represented the surface are of the bony piece ( Without the inclusion of the bony Bankart, the overall %BL by the standard true-fit circle measured using imaging software was 23.8% ± 9.7%. When including the bony Bankart, the glenoid %BL measured using imaging software was found to be 12.1% ± 8.5%. The %BL calculated by our equation with the bony Bankart included was 10% ± 11.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the %BL values measured using the equation and the imaging software ( Using a simple equation that approximates the bony Bankart fragment as a hemiellipse allowed for estimation of the glenoid bone loss, assuming that the fragment can be reduced and adequately fixed. This method may serve as a helpful tool in preoperative planning when there are considerations for incorporating the bony fragment in the repair.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Determining the magnitude of glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability is an important step in guiding management. Most calculations to estimate the bone loss do not include the bony Bankart fragment. However, if it can be reduced and adequately fixed, the estimation of bone loss may be decreased.
Purpose
UNASSIGNED
To derive a simple equation to calculate the surface area of the bony fragment in Bankart fractures.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A total of 26 patients suspected of having clinically significant bone loss underwent computed tomography imaging preoperatively, and the percentage of glenoid bone loss (%BL) was approximated with imaging software using a freehand region of interest area measurement with and without the inclusion of the bony Bankart fragment. By assuming this bony fragment as a hemi-ellipse with height, H, and thickness, d, we represented the surface are of the bony piece (
Results
UNASSIGNED
Without the inclusion of the bony Bankart, the overall %BL by the standard true-fit circle measured using imaging software was 23.8% ± 9.7%. When including the bony Bankart, the glenoid %BL measured using imaging software was found to be 12.1% ± 8.5%. The %BL calculated by our equation with the bony Bankart included was 10% ± 11.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the %BL values measured using the equation and the imaging software (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Using a simple equation that approximates the bony Bankart fragment as a hemiellipse allowed for estimation of the glenoid bone loss, assuming that the fragment can be reduced and adequately fixed. This method may serve as a helpful tool in preoperative planning when there are considerations for incorporating the bony fragment in the repair.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37223075
doi: 10.1177/23259671231168879
pii: 10.1177_23259671231168879
pmc: PMC10201139
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671231168879Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from McGill University Health Centre (reference No. 2021-7082).
Références
Arthroscopy. 2004 Feb;20(2):169-74
pubmed: 14760350
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 Aug;17(8):482-93
pubmed: 19652030
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;45(9):1967-1974
pubmed: 28426240
Arthroscopy. 2000 Oct;16(7):677-94
pubmed: 11027751
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1719-25
pubmed: 25883168
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):112-8
pubmed: 12531767
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 May;85(5):878-84
pubmed: 12728039
Skeletal Radiol. 2008 Aug;37(8):731-6
pubmed: 18523766
Arthroscopy. 2015 Apr;31(4):608-614.e1
pubmed: 25842231
Bone Joint J. 2021 Apr;103-B(4):718-724
pubmed: 33789477
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Nov 26;7(11):2325967119885345
pubmed: 31807605
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Nov 18;97(22):1833-43
pubmed: 26582613
Arthroscopy. 2002 May-Jun;18(5):488-91
pubmed: 11987058
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Sep;88 Suppl 1 Pt 2:159-69
pubmed: 16951089
Orthop J Sports Med. 2015 Dec 29;3(12):2325967115621494
pubmed: 26779554