Glenoid rim morphology in young athletes with unstable painful shoulders: primarily painful vs. frankly unstable.
Bone fragment
Collision/contact athlete
Glenoid rim morphology
Three-dimensional computed tomography
Unrecognized anteroinferior instability
Unstable painful shoulder
Unstable shoulder
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
18
9
2023
entrez:
18
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate the characteristics of glenoid rim morphology in young athletes (<40 yr) with unstable painful shoulder. This was a retrospective case series. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) shoulder pain during sports activity, (2) traumatic onset, (3) no complaint of shoulder instability, and (4) soft tissue or bony lesions confirmed on imaging examinations (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging). The above-mentioned painful cohort was then compared (in a 2:1 ratio) to a match-paired control group of patients with similar demographics but with frank anterior glenohumeral instability as defined by imaging and physical findings. The pain (not apprehension) was reproduced during the anterior apprehension test in supine position and relieved by relocation test in all patients. Glenoid rim morphology, bone union in shoulders with a fragment-type glenoid, glenoid defect size, bone fragment size, medial displacement of bone fragments (MDBF), and medial distance of erosion (MDE) were compared between painful shoulders and unstable shoulders. There were 79 painful shoulders and 165 unstable shoulders. The glenoid rim morphology was normal in 33 shoulders, erosion-type in 15 shoulders, and fragment-type in 31 shoulders among painful shoulders, whereas the respective shoulders were 19, 33, and 113 among unstable shoulders ( In painful shoulders normal or erosion-type glenoid was predominant, and glenoid defect size was significantly smaller than unstable shoulders. On the other hand, a large bone fragment (≥7.5%) remained and united completely or partially in all shoulders with a larger glenoid defect (≥13.5%). Bone union was obtained within 2 mm from the articular surface in most of them.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
To investigate the characteristics of glenoid rim morphology in young athletes (<40 yr) with unstable painful shoulder.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a retrospective case series. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) shoulder pain during sports activity, (2) traumatic onset, (3) no complaint of shoulder instability, and (4) soft tissue or bony lesions confirmed on imaging examinations (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging). The above-mentioned painful cohort was then compared (in a 2:1 ratio) to a match-paired control group of patients with similar demographics but with frank anterior glenohumeral instability as defined by imaging and physical findings. The pain (not apprehension) was reproduced during the anterior apprehension test in supine position and relieved by relocation test in all patients. Glenoid rim morphology, bone union in shoulders with a fragment-type glenoid, glenoid defect size, bone fragment size, medial displacement of bone fragments (MDBF), and medial distance of erosion (MDE) were compared between painful shoulders and unstable shoulders.
Results
UNASSIGNED
There were 79 painful shoulders and 165 unstable shoulders. The glenoid rim morphology was normal in 33 shoulders, erosion-type in 15 shoulders, and fragment-type in 31 shoulders among painful shoulders, whereas the respective shoulders were 19, 33, and 113 among unstable shoulders (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
In painful shoulders normal or erosion-type glenoid was predominant, and glenoid defect size was significantly smaller than unstable shoulders. On the other hand, a large bone fragment (≥7.5%) remained and united completely or partially in all shoulders with a larger glenoid defect (≥13.5%). Bone union was obtained within 2 mm from the articular surface in most of them.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37719811
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.04.004
pii: S2666-6383(23)00110-X
pmc: PMC10499651
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
720-729Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Références
Arthroscopy. 2004 Feb;20(2):169-74
pubmed: 14760350
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;45(9):1967-1974
pubmed: 28426240
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jan;82(1):35-46
pubmed: 10653082
Arthroscopy. 2000 Oct;16(7):677-94
pubmed: 11027751
Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):949-54
pubmed: 19261900
Arthroscopy. 2022 Mar;38(3):673-681
pubmed: 34389413
JSES Int. 2022 Dec 21;7(2):218-224
pubmed: 36911769
Orthop J Sports Med. 2014 Apr 21;2(4):2325967114529920
pubmed: 26535319
J Orthop Sci. 2022 Nov 16;:
pubmed: 36402605
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Nov 18;97(22):1833-43
pubmed: 26582613
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Oct;29(10):1974-1980
pubmed: 32741565
Am J Sports Med. 2022 Jan;50(1):189-194
pubmed: 34855520
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1719-25
pubmed: 25883168
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1438-47
pubmed: 25748472
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 May;85(5):878-84
pubmed: 12728039
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):1662-1669
pubmed: 28478901
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 May;190(5):1247-54
pubmed: 18430839
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):98-106
pubmed: 20850995
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jun;41(6):1380-6
pubmed: 23572099
JSES Int. 2022 Feb 05;6(3):349-354
pubmed: 35572430