Cargando…

Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications

OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for recurrent shoulder instability, in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss, consists of several iterations of bone stabilization procedures. However, advanced arthritic changes with the Laterjet procedure and rapid resorption changes with the iliac crest bone g...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Giacomo, Anthony F., Rahmi, Hithem, Bastian, Sevag, Klein, Christopher, Itamura, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094733/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967118S00097
_version_ 1783347855579152384
author De Giacomo, Anthony F.
Rahmi, Hithem
Bastian, Sevag
Klein, Christopher
Itamura, John
author_facet De Giacomo, Anthony F.
Rahmi, Hithem
Bastian, Sevag
Klein, Christopher
Itamura, John
author_sort De Giacomo, Anthony F.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for recurrent shoulder instability, in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss, consists of several iterations of bone stabilization procedures. However, advanced arthritic changes with the Laterjet procedure and rapid resorption changes with the iliac crest bone graft reconstruction has led into the search for more optimal surgical reconstruction options. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent shoulder instability, with significant glenoid bone loss, treated with fresh distal tibial allograft reconstruction with regards to recurrence, revision surgery, and complications. METHODS: At a single institution, all consecutive patients with recurrent shoulder instability and at least 15% anterior glenoid bone loss, undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction, between 2011 to 2016, were identified by diagnostic and procedural codes. All clinical notes, diagnostic imaging, and operative reports were reviewed in detail. From these sources, demographics, operative techniques, and radiographic parameters were collected and measured. Functional outcome scores were prospectively collected from patients. The primary outcome of the study was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) score. The secondary outcomes of the study were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, recurrent instability, revision surgery, and complications. RESULTS: At 6 years, there were a total of 36 distal tibial allograft reconstructions performed in patients with recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Amongst this cohort, average age was 35 years old with 72% of patients being male. The dominant extremity was involved in 20 (56%) of patients and 24 (67%) of patients had previous surgery to address episodes of shoulder instability. Follow-up, for the entire cohort was on average 15.5 months. In comparison to preoperative range of motion, after surgery there was significantly less abduction (P=0.01). At final follow-up, patients undergoing distial tibial allograft reconstruction showed trend towards significant improvement in the DASH score (preoperative DASH=50.7, postoperative DASH=37.1, P=0.09). In like manner, there was significant improvement in both the VAS score (P=0.001) and the SANE score (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between those patients who had failed a previous surgery for instability. Recurrent instability, after distal tibial allograft reconstruction, occurred in 4 (11%) of patients and 8 (22%) of patients underwent an additional surgical procedure. Complications occurred in 31% of patients, with the most common complication being rupture of the subscapularis. CONCLUSION: This study provides functional outcomes in one of the largest consecutive cohort of patients undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction for recurrent shoulder instability due to significant glenoid bone loss. The study suggests that distal tibial allograft reconstruction may provide improved functional outcomes in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. After this procedure, 89% of patients did not experience any additional episodes of shoulder instability. Despite these encouraging results, complications are common after this procedure, with 31% of patients experiencing a complication.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6094733
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60947332018-08-23 Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications De Giacomo, Anthony F. Rahmi, Hithem Bastian, Sevag Klein, Christopher Itamura, John Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for recurrent shoulder instability, in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss, consists of several iterations of bone stabilization procedures. However, advanced arthritic changes with the Laterjet procedure and rapid resorption changes with the iliac crest bone graft reconstruction has led into the search for more optimal surgical reconstruction options. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent shoulder instability, with significant glenoid bone loss, treated with fresh distal tibial allograft reconstruction with regards to recurrence, revision surgery, and complications. METHODS: At a single institution, all consecutive patients with recurrent shoulder instability and at least 15% anterior glenoid bone loss, undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction, between 2011 to 2016, were identified by diagnostic and procedural codes. All clinical notes, diagnostic imaging, and operative reports were reviewed in detail. From these sources, demographics, operative techniques, and radiographic parameters were collected and measured. Functional outcome scores were prospectively collected from patients. The primary outcome of the study was the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) score. The secondary outcomes of the study were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, recurrent instability, revision surgery, and complications. RESULTS: At 6 years, there were a total of 36 distal tibial allograft reconstructions performed in patients with recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Amongst this cohort, average age was 35 years old with 72% of patients being male. The dominant extremity was involved in 20 (56%) of patients and 24 (67%) of patients had previous surgery to address episodes of shoulder instability. Follow-up, for the entire cohort was on average 15.5 months. In comparison to preoperative range of motion, after surgery there was significantly less abduction (P=0.01). At final follow-up, patients undergoing distial tibial allograft reconstruction showed trend towards significant improvement in the DASH score (preoperative DASH=50.7, postoperative DASH=37.1, P=0.09). In like manner, there was significant improvement in both the VAS score (P=0.001) and the SANE score (P=0.002). There was no significant difference in functional outcome scores between those patients who had failed a previous surgery for instability. Recurrent instability, after distal tibial allograft reconstruction, occurred in 4 (11%) of patients and 8 (22%) of patients underwent an additional surgical procedure. Complications occurred in 31% of patients, with the most common complication being rupture of the subscapularis. CONCLUSION: This study provides functional outcomes in one of the largest consecutive cohort of patients undergoing distal tibial allograft reconstruction for recurrent shoulder instability due to significant glenoid bone loss. The study suggests that distal tibial allograft reconstruction may provide improved functional outcomes in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. After this procedure, 89% of patients did not experience any additional episodes of shoulder instability. Despite these encouraging results, complications are common after this procedure, with 31% of patients experiencing a complication. SAGE Publications 2018-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6094733/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967118S00097 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://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 (http://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
De Giacomo, Anthony F.
Rahmi, Hithem
Bastian, Sevag
Klein, Christopher
Itamura, John
Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title_full Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title_fullStr Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title_full_unstemmed Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title_short Distal Tibial Allograft Glenoid Reconstruction for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: Clinical Outcomes and Complications
title_sort distal tibial allograft glenoid reconstruction for recurrent shoulder instability: clinical outcomes and complications
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094733/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967118S00097
work_keys_str_mv AT degiacomoanthonyf distaltibialallograftglenoidreconstructionforrecurrentshoulderinstabilityclinicaloutcomesandcomplications
AT rahmihithem distaltibialallograftglenoidreconstructionforrecurrentshoulderinstabilityclinicaloutcomesandcomplications
AT bastiansevag distaltibialallograftglenoidreconstructionforrecurrentshoulderinstabilityclinicaloutcomesandcomplications
AT kleinchristopher distaltibialallograftglenoidreconstructionforrecurrentshoulderinstabilityclinicaloutcomesandcomplications
AT itamurajohn distaltibialallograftglenoidreconstructionforrecurrentshoulderinstabilityclinicaloutcomesandcomplications