Posterior Glenoid Bone Grafting in the Setting of Excessive Glenoid Retroversion Does Not Provide Adequate Stability in a Cadaveric Posterior Instability Model

Lukas Ernstbrunner,Alexander Paszicsnyek,Andrew M. Ker,Manuel Waltenspül,Elias Bachmann,Karl Wieser,Samy Bouaicha,Paul Borbas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241279429
IF: 4.8
2024-09-28
The American Journal of Sports Medicine
Abstract:The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Ahead of Print. Background:Excessive glenoid retroversion is a known risk factor for posterior shoulder instability and failure after soft tissue stabilization procedures. Whether excessive glenoid retroversion is a risk factor for failure after posterior glenoid bone grafting is unknown.Purpose:To evaluate the biomechanical effectiveness of posterior iliac crest bone grafting (ICBG) for posterior shoulder instability with increasing glenoid retroversion.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:Six fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders had a posterior glenoid osteotomy allowing the glenoid retroversion to be set at 0°, 10°, and 20°. At these 3 preset angles, 4 conditions were simulated consecutively on the same specimen: (1) intact glenohumeral joint, (2) posterior Bankart lesion, (3) 20% posterior glenoid bone defect, and (4) posterior ICBG. Stability was evaluated in the jerk position (60° of glenohumeral anteflexion, 60° of internal rotation) by measuring (A) posterior humeral head (HH) translation (in mm) and (B) peak translational force (in N) necessary for translation of the HH over 25% of glenoid width.Results:At 0° of retroversion, the ICBG restored posterior HH translation and peak translational force to values comparable with those of the intact condition (P = .649 and P = .979, respectively). At 10° of retroversion, the ICBG restored the peak translational force to a value comparable with that of the intact condition (22.3 vs 24.7 N, respectively; P = .418) but showed a significant difference in posterior HH translation in comparison to the intact condition (4.5 vs 2.0 mm, respectively; P = .026). There was a significant increase in posterior HH translation and significant decrease in peak translational force with the ICBG at 20° of glenoid retroversion compared with the intact condition (posterior HH translation: 7.9 vs 2.0 mm, respectively; P 10°.
orthopedics,sport sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?