Display options
Share it on

Orthop J Sports Med. 2013 Jul 15;1(2):2325967113496213. doi: 10.1177/2325967113496213. eCollection 2013 Jul.

Clinical Application of the "Glenoid Track" Concept for Defining Humeral Head Engagement in Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Preliminary Report.

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine

Paul D Metzger, Brian Barlow, Dominic Leonardelli, William Peace, Daniel J Solomon, Matthew T Provencher

Affiliations

  1. US Naval Hospital Okinawa, Okinawa, Japan.
  2. Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
  3. Panorama Orthopedics, Denver, Colorado, USA.
  4. Marin Orthopedics, Novato, California, USA.

PMID: 26535236 PMCID: PMC4555484 DOI: 10.1177/2325967113496213

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of Hill-Sachs injuries is difficult to determine and is potentiated by the finding that a Hill-Sachs injury becomes more important in the setting of glenoid bone loss, making engagement of the humeral head on the glenoid inherently easier. The "glenoid track" concept was developed to biomechanically quantify the effects of a combined glenoid and humeral head bony defects on instability.

PURPOSE: To clinically evaluate humeral head engagement on the glenoid by utilizing glenoid track measurements of both humeral head and glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort.

METHODS: A total of 205 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were evaluated, and of these, 140 patients (68%; 9 females [6%] and 131 males [94%]) with a Hill-Sachs lesion and a mean age of 27.6 years (range, 15-47 years; standard error of mean [SEM], 0.59) were included in the final magnetic resonance angiogram [MRA]) analysis. Bipolar bone loss measures of glenoid bone loss (sagittal oblique MRA) and multiple size measures of the Hill-Sachs injury (coronal, axial, and sagittal MRA) were recorded. Based on the extent of the bipolar lesion, patients were classified with glenoid track as either outside and engaging of the glenoid on the humeral head (OUT-E) or inside and nonengaging (IN-NE). The 2 groups were then compared with clinical evidence of engagement on examination under anesthesia (EUA) using video arthroscopy, number of dislocations, length of instability, and patient age.

RESULTS: The mean glenoid bone loss was 7.6% (range, 0%-29%; SEM, 1.20%), and 31 of 140 (22%) patients demonstrated clinical engagement on EUA. Radiographically, 19 (13.4%) patients were determined to be OUT-E, while 121 (86.6%) were IN-NE and not expected to engage. Of those 19 patients with suggested radiographic engagement (OUT-E), 16 (84.5%) had clinical evidence of engagement versus only 12.4% that clinically engaged (15/121) without radiographic evidence of engagement (IN-NE) (P < .001). Younger age and a greater number of recurrence events were jointly predictive of a patient being classified as OUT-E (11.8 vs 6.4 dislocations; P = .015).

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that glenohumeral engagement was well predicted based on preoperative glenoid and humeral head bone loss measurements using the glenoid track method. In addition, younger age and a greater number of recurrences were predictive of engagement. The glenoid track concept may be important to fully assess the overall risk for engagement prior to surgery and may help guide surgical decision making such as bony augmentation procedures.

Keywords: Hill-Sachs lesion; glenohumeral engagement; glenoid bone loss; shoulder instability

References

  1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Jan;60(1):1-16 - PubMed
  2. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):803-9 - PubMed
  3. Arthroscopy. 2007 Oct;23(10):1033-41 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 1994 Mar;190(3):665-8 - PubMed
  5. Arthroscopy. 1989;5(4):254-7 - PubMed
  6. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Dec;66(9):1443-50 - PubMed
  7. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Nov-Dec;15(6):759-63 - PubMed
  8. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948 Feb;30B(1):19-25 - PubMed
  9. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5):649-56 - PubMed
  10. Arthroscopy. 2000 Oct;16(7):677-94 - PubMed
  11. J Orthop Res. 1992 Jul;10(4):524-34 - PubMed
  12. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Apr;(194):153-8 - PubMed
  13. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Feb;66(2):159-68 - PubMed
  14. Arthroscopy. 2003 Sep;19(7):732-9 - PubMed
  15. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jan;82(1):35-46 - PubMed
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948 Feb;30B(1):53-8 - PubMed
  17. Med Chir Trans. 1880;63:317-21 - PubMed
  18. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;13(5):509-16 - PubMed
  19. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000 Nov-Dec;9(6):495-7 - PubMed
  20. Am J Sports Med. 2007 Dec;35(12 ):2067-72 - PubMed
  21. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Oct;129(10 ):1327-34 - PubMed
  22. Radiology. 1992 Dec;185(3):847-52 - PubMed
  23. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995 Sep-Oct;4(5):365-9 - PubMed
  24. Am J Sports Med. 1980 Sep-Oct;8(5):328-32 - PubMed
  25. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Sep;36(9):1805-12 - PubMed
  26. Am J Sports Med. 1995 Sep-Oct;23 (5):545-51 - PubMed
  27. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):317-28 - PubMed
  28. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Mar;69(3):393-9 - PubMed
  29. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981 Jul;63(6):863-72 - PubMed
  30. Am J Sports Med. 2005 Jun;33(6):912-25 - PubMed
  31. Arthroscopy. 2007 Sep;23(9):985-90 - PubMed

Publication Types