Acromion and Distal Clavicle Grafts for Arthroscopic Glenoid Reconstruction.
arthroscopic
biomechanics
bone graft
bony Bankart
glenoid defect
glenoid reconstruction
recurrent dislocation
screw-free
suture anchor
technique
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jun 2023
13 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
22
03
2023
revised:
28
05
2023
accepted:
10
06
2023
medline:
28
6
2023
pubmed:
28
6
2023
entrez:
28
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We intended to determine if an acromion or distal clavicle bone graft could restore large glenoid defects using two novel, screw-free graft fixation techniques. Twenty-four sawbone shoulder models were divided into four groups (n = 6 per group) according to fixation technique and bone graft: (1) modified buckle-down technique with clavicle graft, (2) modified buckle-down technique with acromion graft, (3) cross-link technique with acromion graft, (4) cross-link technique with clavicle graft. Testing was performed sequentially in (1) intact models, (2) after creation of a 30% by-width glenoid defect and (3) after repair. The shoulder joint was translated anteriorly, and glenohumeral contact pressures and load were measured to quantify the biomechanical stability. Maximum contact pressures were restored to 42-56% of intact glenoid using acromion and clavicle grafts with novel fixation techniques. Acromion grafts attained higher maximum contact pressures than clavicle grafts in all groups. Peak translational forces increased by 171-368% after all repairs. This controlled laboratory study on sawbone models found that both the acromion and distal clavicle are suitable autologous bone graft options for treating large anterior glenoid defects, having appropriate dimensions and contours for reconstructing the glenoid arc. The modified buckle-down and cross-link techniques are two graft fixation techniques that restore stability to the shoulder joint upon repairing a large glenoid defect and are advantageous in being screw-free and simple to execute.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We intended to determine if an acromion or distal clavicle bone graft could restore large glenoid defects using two novel, screw-free graft fixation techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-four sawbone shoulder models were divided into four groups (n = 6 per group) according to fixation technique and bone graft: (1) modified buckle-down technique with clavicle graft, (2) modified buckle-down technique with acromion graft, (3) cross-link technique with acromion graft, (4) cross-link technique with clavicle graft. Testing was performed sequentially in (1) intact models, (2) after creation of a 30% by-width glenoid defect and (3) after repair. The shoulder joint was translated anteriorly, and glenohumeral contact pressures and load were measured to quantify the biomechanical stability.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Maximum contact pressures were restored to 42-56% of intact glenoid using acromion and clavicle grafts with novel fixation techniques. Acromion grafts attained higher maximum contact pressures than clavicle grafts in all groups. Peak translational forces increased by 171-368% after all repairs.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This controlled laboratory study on sawbone models found that both the acromion and distal clavicle are suitable autologous bone graft options for treating large anterior glenoid defects, having appropriate dimensions and contours for reconstructing the glenoid arc. The modified buckle-down and cross-link techniques are two graft fixation techniques that restore stability to the shoulder joint upon repairing a large glenoid defect and are advantageous in being screw-free and simple to execute.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37373728
pii: jcm12124035
doi: 10.3390/jcm12124035
pmc: PMC10299189
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Am J Sports Med. 2022 Feb;50(2):311-320
pubmed: 35048737
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Sep 1;5(9):2325967117726045
pubmed: 28894758
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Dec;92 Suppl 2:133-51
pubmed: 21123597
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Apr;20(3):497-501
pubmed: 21106399
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Sep 1;92(11):2059-66
pubmed: 20810855
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 7;21(1):285
pubmed: 32380996
Am J Sports Med. 2023 Jan;51(1):263-270
pubmed: 34633879
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Feb;22(2):286-92
pubmed: 23352473
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):205-12
pubmed: 16303879
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jun;25(6):960-6
pubmed: 26803929
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jun;27(6):e189-e195
pubmed: 29337029
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):1972-7
pubmed: 16140811
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Aug;21(8):1110-9
pubmed: 22608928
Shoulder Elbow. 2018 Jan;10(1):15-24
pubmed: 29276533
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jan;82(1):35-46
pubmed: 10653082
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jul;28(7):1298-1307
pubmed: 31129017
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Jun 14;6(6):2325967118777842
pubmed: 29977940
Lyon Chir. 1954 Nov-Dec;49(8):994-7
pubmed: 13234709
J ISAKOS. 2021 Sep;6(5):308-317
pubmed: 34145077
Injury. 2011 Sep;42 Suppl 2:S3-15
pubmed: 21704997
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 May 15;26(10):e207-e218
pubmed: 29659379
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;46(5):1046-1052
pubmed: 29382209
Shoulder Elbow. 2017 Oct;9(4):272-278
pubmed: 28932284
Int Orthop. 2019 Aug;43(8):1899-1907
pubmed: 30151779
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Aug;29(8):1615-1620
pubmed: 32197806
Arthroscopy. 2009 Apr;25(4):446-52
pubmed: 19341934
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015 Mar;8(1):59-66
pubmed: 25644052
Arthrosc Tech. 2014 Jul 28;3(4):e475-81
pubmed: 25264509
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Feb;24(2):470-8
pubmed: 26231148
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jan;25(1):78-89
pubmed: 26256014
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Nov 13;6(11):2325967118807906
pubmed: 30480021
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 7;93(23):2227-36
pubmed: 22159859
JSES Open Access. 2018 Feb 01;2(1):104-108
pubmed: 30675576