Cargando…

Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet

OBJECTIVES: The Latarjet technique has been the gold standard treatment for glenoid bone loss following anterior shoulder instability due to its low recurrence rate, but other techniques including arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) have shown similar outcomes with fewer complication...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA, Sparavalo, Sara, Ma, Jie, Remedios, Sarah, Hoyt, Benjamin, Riccio, Cory, Kilcoyne, Kelly, Dickens, Jonathan, Wong, Ivan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392453/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967123S00147
_version_ 1785082965092466688
author PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA
Sparavalo, Sara
Ma, Jie
Remedios, Sarah
Hoyt, Benjamin
Riccio, Cory
Kilcoyne, Kelly
Dickens, Jonathan
Wong, Ivan
author_facet PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA
Sparavalo, Sara
Ma, Jie
Remedios, Sarah
Hoyt, Benjamin
Riccio, Cory
Kilcoyne, Kelly
Dickens, Jonathan
Wong, Ivan
author_sort PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The Latarjet technique has been the gold standard treatment for glenoid bone loss following anterior shoulder instability due to its low recurrence rate, but other techniques including arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) have shown similar outcomes with fewer complications. The Latarjet requires a subscapularis split or take-down for placement of the coracoid, which may compromise post-operative subscapularis quality and strength. The AAGR is a subscapularis-sparing technique that obviates the need for a subscapularis split by using a far medial (Halifax) portal for graft placement. The purpose of this study was to compare subscapularis muscle changes before and after surgery between Latarjet and AAGR patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically with AAGR and Latarjet that had pre- and post-operative CT scans. Patients’ charts were reviewed to obtain demographic information, as well as CT scan cross-sectional area measurements of the subscapularis muscle on pre- and post-surgery scans. We used a pre-existing validated formula (volume=[0.06(A+C)]-13.02) for calculating the volume of the subscapularis pre- and post-operatively based on the cross-sectional area of the muscle. RESULTS: Our cohort included 40 patients in each group with pre- and post-operative CT scans. On average, patients had a CT scan one year post-operatively. Pre-operatively, patients were estimated to have similar subscapularis volumes (p>0.05). We found that the change in medial area of the subscapularis muscle was significantly higher in the Latarjet group (-325.8 mm2) compared to the AAGR group (-73.2 mm2) (p<0.05). We found that AAGR patients had a 3% increase in subscapularis volume post-operatively, while the Latarjet patients had 3% decrease in volume (p<0.05) CONCLUSIONS: The AAGR technique is subscapularis-sparing both in surgical technique and structural outcomes, resulting in comparable subscapularis cross-sectional area and volume pre- and post- operatively. Latarjet using a subscapularis split results in lower subscapularis medial volumetric area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10392453
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103924532023-08-02 Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA Sparavalo, Sara Ma, Jie Remedios, Sarah Hoyt, Benjamin Riccio, Cory Kilcoyne, Kelly Dickens, Jonathan Wong, Ivan Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: The Latarjet technique has been the gold standard treatment for glenoid bone loss following anterior shoulder instability due to its low recurrence rate, but other techniques including arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) have shown similar outcomes with fewer complications. The Latarjet requires a subscapularis split or take-down for placement of the coracoid, which may compromise post-operative subscapularis quality and strength. The AAGR is a subscapularis-sparing technique that obviates the need for a subscapularis split by using a far medial (Halifax) portal for graft placement. The purpose of this study was to compare subscapularis muscle changes before and after surgery between Latarjet and AAGR patients. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of patients treated surgically with AAGR and Latarjet that had pre- and post-operative CT scans. Patients’ charts were reviewed to obtain demographic information, as well as CT scan cross-sectional area measurements of the subscapularis muscle on pre- and post-surgery scans. We used a pre-existing validated formula (volume=[0.06(A+C)]-13.02) for calculating the volume of the subscapularis pre- and post-operatively based on the cross-sectional area of the muscle. RESULTS: Our cohort included 40 patients in each group with pre- and post-operative CT scans. On average, patients had a CT scan one year post-operatively. Pre-operatively, patients were estimated to have similar subscapularis volumes (p>0.05). We found that the change in medial area of the subscapularis muscle was significantly higher in the Latarjet group (-325.8 mm2) compared to the AAGR group (-73.2 mm2) (p<0.05). We found that AAGR patients had a 3% increase in subscapularis volume post-operatively, while the Latarjet patients had 3% decrease in volume (p<0.05) CONCLUSIONS: The AAGR technique is subscapularis-sparing both in surgical technique and structural outcomes, resulting in comparable subscapularis cross-sectional area and volume pre- and post- operatively. Latarjet using a subscapularis split results in lower subscapularis medial volumetric area. SAGE Publications 2023-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10392453/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967123S00147 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
PEÑA, JOSE CASTILLO DE LA
Sparavalo, Sara
Ma, Jie
Remedios, Sarah
Hoyt, Benjamin
Riccio, Cory
Kilcoyne, Kelly
Dickens, Jonathan
Wong, Ivan
Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title_full Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title_fullStr Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title_full_unstemmed Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title_short Poster 160: Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Does Not Affect Subscapularis Muscle Compared To Latarjet
title_sort poster 160: arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction does not affect subscapularis muscle compared to latarjet
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10392453/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967123S00147
work_keys_str_mv AT penajosecastillodela poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT sparavalosara poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT majie poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT remediossarah poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT hoytbenjamin poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT ricciocory poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT kilcoynekelly poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT dickensjonathan poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet
AT wongivan poster160arthroscopicanatomicglenoidreconstructiondoesnotaffectsubscapularismusclecomparedtolatarjet