• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.40-46
• /
• 2013

Benign intraosseous osteolytic lesions of the glenoid are very rare. The present study reports on three cases of symptomatic intraosseous osteolytic lesions of the glenoid in which surgical interventions were made. Of the three, two cases presented with intraosseous ganglion and one case with fibrous dysplasia. In all the cases, the lesion was located at the posteroinferior portion of the glenoid, and it seems to be related to posterior shoulder pain. If intraosseous osteolytic lesions have symptoms or the risk for chondral defects or cortical breakage, surgical intervention is needed and bone curettage with or without bone grafting will be a useful treatment option.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.179-182
• /
• 2009

Purpose: Point fixation at the margin of the glenoid is a limitation of conventional arthroscopic stabilization using suture anchors, and does not afford sufficient footprint healing, especially in glenoid bone deficiency. So, we introduce an arthroscopic suture bridge transosseous-equivalent technique for bony Bankart lesions to avoid the technical disadvantage of point contact with anchor fixation and to improve mechanical stability through cross compression of the labrum. Surgical approach: The technique was adapted from the transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique using suture bridges, which improved the pressurized contact area and mean pressure between the tendon and footprint. After preparation of the glenoid bed by removal, reshaping, or mobilization of the bony lesion, two anchors (3.0 mm Biofastak, $Arthrex^{(R)}$, Naples, FL) were inserted into the superior and inferior portion of the bony Bankart lesion. Using a suture hook, medial mattress sutures were applied around the capsulolabral portion of the IGHL complex to obtain sufficient depth of glenoid coverage. A 3.5 mm pushloc anchor ($Arthrex^{(R)}$, Naples, FL) hole was made in the articular edge of the anterior glenoid rim. distal, suture bridge was applied, and proximal was inserted to mobilize the labrum in the proximal direction. This avoided the technical disadvantage of point contact with anchor fixation and decreased the level of gap formation through cross-compression of the labrum.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.110-119
• /
• 2019

Proximal humerus fracture can be defined as a fracture that occurs in the surgical neck or proximal part of the humerus. Despite the appropriate treatment, however, various complications and sequelae can occur, and the treatment is quite difficult often requiring surgical treatment, such as a shoulder replacement. The classification of sequelae after a proximal humerus fracture is most commonly used by Boileau and can be divided into two categories and four types. Category I is an intracapsular impacted fracture that is not accompanied by important distortions between the tuberosities and humeral head. An anatomic prosthesis can be used without greater tuberosity osteotomy. In category I, there are type 1 with cephalic collapse or necrosis with minimal tuberosity malunion and type 2 related to locked dislocation or fracture-dislocation. Category II is an extracapsular dis-impacted fracture with gross distortion between the tuberosities and the humeral head. To perform an anatomic prosthesis, a tuberosity osteotomy should be performed. In category II, there are type 3 with nonunion of the surgical neck and type 4 with severe tuberosity malunion. In type 1, non-constrained arthroplasty (NCA) without a tuberosity osteotomy should be considered as a treatment. On the other hand, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) should be considered if types 1C or 1D accompanied by valgus or varus deformity or severe fatty degeneration of the rotator cuff. In general, the results are satisfactory when NCA is performed in type 2 sequelae. On the other hand, RSA can be considered as an option when there is no bony defect of the glenoid and a defect of the rotator cuff is accompanied. In type 3, it would be effective to perform internal fixation with a bone wedge graft rather than shoulder replacement arthroplasty. Recent reports on the results of RSA are also increasing. On the other hand, recent reports suggest that good results are obtained with RSA in type 3. In type 4, RSA should be considered as a first option.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.134-139
• /
• 2011

Purpose: We wanted to review the arthroscopic Remplissage technique and introduce our experiences with it for treating recurrent shoulder instability with a large Hill-Sachs lesion. Materials and Methods: The arthroscopic Remplissage technique with Bankart repair is performed in patients with no osteoarthritis, no fracture around the shoulder, a history of recurrence more than 10 times, a large Hill-Sachs lesion more than 30 to 40% of the humeral articular surface and glenoid bone loss less than 20%. Results and Conclusion: For recurrent shoulder instability with a large Hill-Sachs lesion, the Remplissage technique resulted in a good outcome for the shoulder stability, and good clinical and functional results.

• 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

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.55 no.5
• /
• pp.374-382
• /
• 2020

Recurrence is the most common complication after shoulder instability surgery, and the main causes of the postoperative recurrence of instability are trauma, misdiagnosis, and technical errors. The risk factors of recurrence may be classified as patient related, anatomical or technical. Causes of failure should be thoroughly evaluated by meticulous history taking, physical examination, and imaging studies, and followed by proper treatment of pathologic lesions. Nonoperative treatment should be considered initially in cases of recurred instability after shoulder instability surgery, but if this fails, repeated recurrence is prevented by performing appropriate anatomical reconstruction of ruptured Bankart lesions, capsular laxities, glenoid deficiencies and humeral head bone defects.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.40-46
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of arthroscopic Bony Bankart repair using a One Anchor Double Fixation Technique. Materials and Method: Seventeen patients with a Bony Bankart lesion were treated using the One Anchor Double Fixation Technique (OADF Technique). There were 13 males and 4 females. The average age was 24 years (range 17-42). The average follow-up period was 22.3 months. One 3.0 mm suture anchor with doubly loaded sutures was inserted into the glenoid rim. One suture strand was passed the around the small bony fragment and tied first. Another suture strand was passed through the capsule and tied over the bony fragment. The result was measured using Rowe's evaluation index & KSS score. The glenoid defect & bony fragment were measured by 3D-CT scan. Results: Rowe's evaluation index on the final follow-up showed an overall improvement from an average of 54 (range, 23-71) to 83.4 (range 71-90). Of the 17 cases, 13 were excellent, 3 were good, and 1 was fair. KSS scores showed improvement from an average of 71 (range 49-82) to 92.5 (range 82-94). There were no cases where pain continued to the final follow-up, and no cases being re-dislocated during the follow-up period. For six cases, we confirmed the bony healing of the bony Bankart lesion by CT. Conclusion: Bony Bankart lesion repair using this new method achieves excellent clinical results with low recurrence rates and is considered another choice for bony Bankart lesions.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.70-76
• /
• 2006

Purpose: This study presents 5 patients who had metallic anchor protrusion on glenoid after Bankart repair in anterior shoulder instability and reviewed the cause, clinical feature and arthroscopic removal technique. Method and Materials: 5 male with average age of 22 years (range 19 to 25 years) were included. 4 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 1 patient had open repair for anterior shoulder instability. They had protruded metallic suture anchors on glenoid and the protruded suture anchors were removed arthroscopically using larger suture anchor empty inserter. Results: 4 patients had painful clicking sound with motion of abduction and external rotation and 1 patient showed shoulder instability. The ROM showed normal except mild degrees loss of external rotation. The position of protruded metallic anchor was 2, 3 and 5 O'clock in three patients and 4 O'clock in 2 patients. In 2 patients, the metallic suture anchor was malpositioned about 5mm off on the medial side from the anterior glenoid edge. All had Outerbrige classification Grade II-III chondral damage on humeral head and 1 patient showed glenoid cartilage destruction. None had shoulder instability after 2 years of follow-up. Constant score was 65 preoperatively and 89 postoperatively. ASES score was 67 preoperatively and 88 postoperatively. Conclusion: Symptoms of protruded suture anchor are not combined with instability. Most of symptoms were revealed from the rehabilitation period and confused with postoperative pain. Prompt diagnosis and early arthroscopic removal or impaction of protruded metallic suture anchor is recommended because of serious glenohumeral cartilage destruction. This is easy and simple and reproducible method to remove protruded metallic suture anchor arthroscopically.