Cargando…

A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction

BACKGROUND: The coracoacromial ligament (CAL) is an important restraint to superior shoulder translation. The effect of CAL release on superior stability following the Latarjet is unknown; therefore, our purpose was to compare the effect of two Latarjet techniques and allograft reconstruction on sup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Degen, Ryan M., Giles, Joshua W., Boons, Harm W., Litchfield, Robert B., Johnson, James A., Athwal, George S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3707337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23858289
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.109879
_version_ 1782276498768527360
author Degen, Ryan M.
Giles, Joshua W.
Boons, Harm W.
Litchfield, Robert B.
Johnson, James A.
Athwal, George S.
author_facet Degen, Ryan M.
Giles, Joshua W.
Boons, Harm W.
Litchfield, Robert B.
Johnson, James A.
Athwal, George S.
author_sort Degen, Ryan M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The coracoacromial ligament (CAL) is an important restraint to superior shoulder translation. The effect of CAL release on superior stability following the Latarjet is unknown; therefore, our purpose was to compare the effect of two Latarjet techniques and allograft reconstruction on superior instability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight cadaveric specimens were tested on a simulator. Superior translation was monitored following an axial force in various glenohumeral rotations (neutral, internal, and external) with and without muscle loading. Three intact CAL states were tested (intact specimen, 30% glenoid bone defect, and allograft reconstruction) and two CAL deficient states (classic Latarjet (classicLAT) and congruent-arc Latarjet (congruentLAT)). RESULTS: In neutral without muscle loading, a significant increase in superior translation occurred with the classicLAT as compared to 30% defect (P = 0.046) and allograft conditions (P = 0.041). With muscle loading, the classicLAT (P = 0.005, 0.002) and the congruentLAT (P = 0.018, 0.021) had significantly greater superior translation compared to intact and allograft, respectively. In internal rotation, only loaded tests produced significant results; specifically, classicLAT increased translation compared to all intact CAL states (P < 0.05). In external rotation, only unloaded tests produced significant results with classicLAT and congruentLAT allowing greater translations than intact (P ≤ 0.028). For all simulations, the allograft was not significantly different than intact (P > 0.05) and no differences (P = 1.0) were found between classicLAT and congruentLAT. DISCUSSION: In most simulations, CAL release with the Latarjet lead to increased superior humeral translation. CONCLUSION: The choice of technique for glenoid bone loss reconstruction has implications on the magnitude of superior humeral translation. This previously unknown effect requires further study to determine its clinical and kinematic outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3707337
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37073372013-07-15 A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction Degen, Ryan M. Giles, Joshua W. Boons, Harm W. Litchfield, Robert B. Johnson, James A. Athwal, George S. Int J Shoulder Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: The coracoacromial ligament (CAL) is an important restraint to superior shoulder translation. The effect of CAL release on superior stability following the Latarjet is unknown; therefore, our purpose was to compare the effect of two Latarjet techniques and allograft reconstruction on superior instability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight cadaveric specimens were tested on a simulator. Superior translation was monitored following an axial force in various glenohumeral rotations (neutral, internal, and external) with and without muscle loading. Three intact CAL states were tested (intact specimen, 30% glenoid bone defect, and allograft reconstruction) and two CAL deficient states (classic Latarjet (classicLAT) and congruent-arc Latarjet (congruentLAT)). RESULTS: In neutral without muscle loading, a significant increase in superior translation occurred with the classicLAT as compared to 30% defect (P = 0.046) and allograft conditions (P = 0.041). With muscle loading, the classicLAT (P = 0.005, 0.002) and the congruentLAT (P = 0.018, 0.021) had significantly greater superior translation compared to intact and allograft, respectively. In internal rotation, only loaded tests produced significant results; specifically, classicLAT increased translation compared to all intact CAL states (P < 0.05). In external rotation, only unloaded tests produced significant results with classicLAT and congruentLAT allowing greater translations than intact (P ≤ 0.028). For all simulations, the allograft was not significantly different than intact (P > 0.05) and no differences (P = 1.0) were found between classicLAT and congruentLAT. DISCUSSION: In most simulations, CAL release with the Latarjet lead to increased superior humeral translation. CONCLUSION: The choice of technique for glenoid bone loss reconstruction has implications on the magnitude of superior humeral translation. This previously unknown effect requires further study to determine its clinical and kinematic outcomes. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3707337/ /pubmed/23858289 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.109879 Text en Copyright: © International Journal of Shoulder Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Degen, Ryan M.
Giles, Joshua W.
Boons, Harm W.
Litchfield, Robert B.
Johnson, James A.
Athwal, George S.
A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title_full A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title_fullStr A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title_short A biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: The Latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
title_sort biomechanical assessment of superior shoulder translation after reconstruction of anterior glenoid bone defects: the latarjet procedure versus allograft reconstruction
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3707337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23858289
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.109879
work_keys_str_mv AT degenryanm abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT gilesjoshuaw abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT boonsharmw abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT litchfieldrobertb abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT johnsonjamesa abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT athwalgeorges abiomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT degenryanm biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT gilesjoshuaw biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT boonsharmw biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT litchfieldrobertb biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT johnsonjamesa biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction
AT athwalgeorges biomechanicalassessmentofsuperiorshouldertranslationafterreconstructionofanteriorglenoidbonedefectsthelatarjetprocedureversusallograftreconstruction