• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.70-75
• /
• 2004

Purpose: To evaluate the results of arthroscopic repair of traumatic anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone defect. Materials and Methods: Nineteen patients who had underwent arthroscopic repair for the shoulder with traumatic anterior instability and glenoid bone defect were retrospectively reviewed. Mean age was 24.6 years(range, 20 to 39) and mean follow-up was 23 months(range, 19 to 55). No glenoid bone defect was greater than 7mm in length and 20% of the glenoid. The results were evaluated according to stability, range of motion and function. Results: All patients obtained excellent-good results according to Rowe scoring system. Two patients(10.5%) had instability. The mean loss of external rotation was 15 degrees (range, 0 to 25). Functionally, 17 patients could participate in preinjured work or sports to the same level with or without mild discomfort. The remained 2 patients who had 25 degree loss of external rotation could not play sports. Conclusion: Though arthroscopic repair is a good treatment for traumatic anterior shoulder instability with small glenoid bone defect, it is possible to cause loss of external rotation

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.76-79
• /
• 2009

Purpose: Capsulolabral reconstruction in a traumatic anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint is successful not only for the prevention of recurrent instability but also for the restoration of function. Materials and Methods: However, a capsulolabral procedure alone cannot guarantee a successful result when there is severe bone loss of the glenoid. Results: We report the surgical technique and results of capsulolabral repair and extraarticular bone block with an autogenous iliac crest graft performed on three cases (all male, average age 28 years, minimum follow-up 12 months) with traumatic anterior instability associated with more than 30% glenoid bone loss.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.88-107
• /
• 2024

The aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence on the following 10 technical aspects of glenoid baseplate fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA): screw insertion angles; screw orientation; screw quantity; screw length; screw type; baseplate tilt; baseplate position; baseplate version and rotation; baseplate design; and anatomical safe zones. Five literature libraries were searched for eligible clinical, cadaver, biomechanical, virtual planning, and finite element analysis studies. Studies including patients >16 years old in which at least one of the ten abovementioned technical aspects was assessed were suitable for analysis. We excluded studies of patients with: glenoid bone loss; bony increased offset-reversed shoulder arthroplasty; rTSA with bone grafts; and augmented baseplates. Quality assessment was performed for each included study. Sixty-two studies were included, of which 41 were experimental studies (13 cadaver, 10 virtual planning, 11 biomechanical, and 7 finite element studies) and 21 were clinical studies (12 retrospective cohorts and 9 case-control studies). Overall, the quality of included studies was moderate or high. The majority of studies agreed upon the use of a divergent screw fixation pattern, fixation with four screws (to reduce micromotions), and inferior positioning in neutral or anteversion. A general consensus was not reached on the other technical aspects. Most surgical aspects of baseplate fixation can be decided without affecting fixation strength. There is not a single strategy that provides the best outcome. Therefore, guidelines should cover multiple surgical options that can achieve adequate baseplate fixation.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.108-116
• /
• 2024

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is widely popular among shoulder surgeons and patients, and its prevalence has increased dramatically in recent years. With this increased use, the indicated pathologies associated with RTSA are more likely to be encountered, and challenging patient presentations are more likely to be seen. One prominent challenging presentation is RTSA patients with severe glenoid bone loss. Several techniques with varying degrees of invasiveness, including excessive reaming, alternate centerline, bone grafting, and patient-specific implants (PSIs), have been developed to treat patients with this presentation. PSI treatment uses a three-dimensional reconstruction of a computed tomography scan to design a prosthetic implant or component customized to the patient's glenoid morphology, allowing compensation for any significant bone loss. The novelty of this technology implies a paucity of available literature, and although many studies show that PSIs have good potential for solving challenging shoulder problems, some studies have reported questionable and equivocal outcomes. Additional research is needed to explore the indications, outcomes, techniques, and cost-efficiency of this technology to help establish its role in current treatment guidelines and strategies.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.343-350
• /
• 2023

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications. Methods: This was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported. Results: Of 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1-10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2-8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions: Prolonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device. Level of evidence: III.

• The Academic Congress of Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
• /
• 2002.10a
• /
• pp.7-7
• /
• 2002

Historically, the decision to perform a hemiarthroplasty (HHR) versus a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is based on the status of the glenoid and the status of the soft tissues (rotator cuff). In disease processes where the glenoid articular cartilage is relatively well preserved such as avascular necrosis and complex proximal humerus fractures, most orthopaedists recommend performing a HHR while preserving the native glenoid articular surface. At the other end of the spectrum, if the glenoid has excessive bone loss or is unreconstructible, a HHR is the preferred procedure. In patients who have deficient so(t-tissues (rotator cuff) such as rotator cuff tear arthropathy and, occasionally, rheumatoid arthritis, a HHR is the procedure of choice. The indications for HHR in osteoarthritis remain somewhat controversial. There is mounting evidence that performing a HHR for osteoarthritis is inferior to TSA. Recent developments, or 'third generation techniques and materials', in shoulder arthroplasty are expected to improve the longevity of TSA, particularly the glenoid component. In addition, newer designs of reverse-ball prostheses are entering the market with promising early results in patients with deficient rotator cuff mechanisms.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.50-54
• /
• 2011

A growing number of people are enjoying sports activity with a rise in national income. In this current, many patients complain of traumatic shoulder dislocation and chronic instability with bony Bankart lesion. Computed tomography arthrography is good diagnostic modality for bony Bankart lesion. It is important to consider the patients' factors such as occupation, sports activity, size of preoperative glenoid bone loss before decision of treatment. As development of arthroscopic treatment, there is no significant difference in the result of bony Bankart repair between arthroscopic surgery and open surgery. However, open surgery should be considered for patients with preoperative glenoid bone loss more than 25% or in need of collision sports activity.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.445-454
• /
• 2023

The Latarjet procedure is a surgical procedure that can effectively restore glenohumeral stability, especially in patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. Many studies have shown comparable clinical outcomes between patients undergoing the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and those undergoing traditional open methods or other glenohumeral joint stabilization procedures. However, the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is a challenging technique due to the unfamiliar portal placements, proximity of neurovascular structures, and serious postoperative complications. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure has not yet been widely applied, and a clear understanding of the anatomical structure and the precise methods is required prior to operation performance. Satisfactory clinical outcomes can be achieved by thorough preoperative planning and proper implant fixation methods.

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.100-109
• /
• 2019

The rapidly increasing rate of shoulder arthroplasty is certain to increase the number of revision arthroplasties because of parallel increases in complication numbers. It has been widely reported that the causes of revision shoulder arthroplasty include rotator cuff deficiency, instability, glenoid or humeral component loosening, implant failure, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. Revision arthroplasty can be technically challenging, and surgical options available for failed shoulder arthroplasty are limited, especially in patients with glenoid bone loss or an irreparable rotator cuff tear. Furthermore, the outcomes of revision arthroplasty are consistently inferior to those of primary arthroplasty. Accordingly, surgical decision making requires a good understanding of the etiology of failure. Here, we provide a review of indications of revision arthroplasty and of the surgical techniques used by failure etiology.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2018

Since the introduction of shoulder arthroplasty by Neer in 1974, the design of not only the glenoid component but also the humeral component used in shoulder arthroplasty has continually evolved. Changes to the design of the humeral component include a gradually disappearing proximal fin; diversified surface finishes (such as smooth, grit-blasted, and porous coating); a more contoured stem from the originally straight and cylindrical shape; and the use of press-fit uncemented fixation as opposed to cemented fixation. Despite the evolution of the humeral component for shoulder arthroplasty, however, stem-related complications are not uncommon. Examples of stem-related complications include intraoperative humeral fractures, stem loosening, periprosthetic fractures, and stress shielding. These become much more common in revision arthroplasty, where patients are associated with further complications such as surgical difficulty in extracting the humeral component, proximal metaphyseal bone loss due to stress shielding, intraoperative humeral shaft fractures, and incomplete cement removal. Physicians have made many attempts to reduce these complications by shortening the stem of the humeral component. In this review, we will discuss some of the limitations of long-stem humeral components, the feasibility of replacing them with short-stem humeral components, and the clinical outcomes associated with short-stemmed humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty.