Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Arthroscopic bare spot method underestimates true bone defect in bony Bankart lesion

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The need for precise quantification of the glenoid defect should be emphasized in the choice of surgery for bony Bankart lesion especially in its critical values of 16% to 25. The study aims to verify the validity of bare spot method for arthroscopic quantification of glenoid bone defect using several varieties of posterior portal location.

Materials and methods

Two intact cadaveric glenoids were prepared for the study. The greatest anteroposterior diameter of the perfect circle concept of the glenoid is identified and center of the circle is marked as glenoid bare spot with metal marker. Sixteen percent and 25% defect were sequentially created using a saw at 0° axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the glenoid. These were confirmed by 3D CT glenoid scan based on glenoid rim distances. Each glenoids were mounted on Sawbone dome holder model simulating neutral version.

Quantification of Glenoid bone defects were sequentially measured by glenoid bare spot method arthroscopically by 5 shoulder arthroscopy trained surgeons in 5 varieties of posterior portals in 5 cycles. Paired sample t test was done for arthroscopic over CT scan method of glenoid bone loss quantification. One way ANOVA for portal location analysis was done.

Results

Glenoid bare spot method significantly underestimates 16% and 25% glenoid bone defect to 9% ± 2 (P < 0.001) and 18% ± 2 (P < 0.001), respectively, compared to 3D CT scan method. There was good intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.97 for inter-rater reliability. There was no significant difference in quantification in between five portal sites by one-way ANOVA (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Arthroscopic glenoid bare spot method using the anterior viewing portal significantly underestimates glenoid bone loss in critical margin degrees of decision making in shoulder instability surgery. Minimal variation of posterior portal location for the calibrated probe does not cause significant difference in Glenoid bone loss quantification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boileau P, Villalba M, Hery JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L (2006) Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(8):1755–1763. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.00817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkhart SS, De Beer JF (2000) Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill–Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy 16(7):677–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bigliani LU, Newton PM, Steinmann SP, Connor PM, McLlveen SJ (1998) Glenoid rim lesions associated with recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 26(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465980260012301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bishop JY, Jones GL, Rerko MA, Donaldson C, Group MS (2013) 3-D CT is the most reliable imaging modality when quantifying glenoid bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(4):1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2607-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Huysmans PE, Haen PS, Kidd M, Dhert WJ, Willems JW (2006) The shape of the inferior part of the glenoid: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(6):759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Provencher MT, Bhatia S, Ghodadra NS, Grumet RC, Bach BR Jr, Dewing CB, LeClere L, Romeo AA (2010) Recurrent shoulder instability: current concepts for evaluation and management of glenoid bone loss. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(Suppl 2):133–151. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Kanisawa I, Tsuchiya A (2006) Arthroscopic osseous Bankart repair for chronic recurrent traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Surgical technique. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 1 Pt 2):159–169. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burkhart SS, Debeer JF, Tehrany AM, Parten PM (2002) Quantifying glenoid bone loss arthroscopically in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 18(5):488–491. https://doi.org/10.1053/jars.2002.32212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Saintmard B, Lecouvet F, Rubini A, Dubuc JE (2009) Is the bare spot a valid landmark for glenoid evaluation in arthroscopic Bankart surgery? Acta Orthop Belg 75(6):736–742

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barcia AM, Rowles DJ, Bottoni CR, Dekker TJ, Tokish JM (2013) Glenoid bare area: arthroscopic characterization and its implications on measurement of bone loss. Arthroscopy 29(10):1671–1675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.06.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kralinger F, Aigner F, Longato S, Rieger M, Wambacher M (2006) Is the bare spot a consistent landmark for shoulder arthroscopy? A study of 20 embalmed glenoids with 3-dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction. Arthroscopy 22(4):428–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2005.12.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Burkhart SS (2007) The bare spot of the glenoid. Arthroscopy 23(4):449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.018 (author reply 449–450)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chuang TY, Adams CR, Burkhart SS (2008) Use of preoperative three-dimensional computed tomography to quantify glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 24(4):376–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2007.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Provencher MT, Detterline AJ, Ghodadra N, Romeo AA, Bach BR Jr, Cole BJ, Verma N (2008) Measurement of glenoid bone loss: a comparison of measurement error between 45 degrees and 0 degrees bone loss models and with different posterior arthroscopy portal locations. Am J Sports Med 36(6):1132–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508316041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamamoto N, Muraki T, Sperling JW, Steinmann SP, Cofield RH, Itoi E, An KN (2010) Stabilizing mechanism in bone-grafting of a large glenoid defect. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(11):2059–2066. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Abe H, Kikuchi K, Seki N, Minagawa H, Tuoheti Y (2009) Effect of an anterior glenoid defect on anterior shoulder stability: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 37(5):949–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508330139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M, Kon Y, Tsuchiya A (2003) Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A(5):878–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Itoi E, Lee SB, Berglund LJ, Berge LL, An KN (2000) The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: a cadaveric study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82(1):35–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shin SJ, Koh YW, Bui C, Jeong WK, Akeda M, Cho NS, McGarry MH, Lee TQ (2016) What is the critical value of glenoid bone loss at which soft tissue Bankart repair does not restore glenohumeral translation, restricts range of motion, and leads to abnormal humeral head position? Am J Sports Med 44(11):2784–2791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516656367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Itoi E, Lee SB, Amrami KK, Wenger DE, An KN (2003) Quantitative assessment of classic anteroinferior bony Bankart lesions by radiography and computed tomography. Am J Sports Med 31(1):112–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465030310010301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saito H, Itoi E, Sugaya H, Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Tuoheti Y (2005) Location of the glenoid defect in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation. Am J Sports Med 33(6):889–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Piponov HI, Savin D, Shah N, Esposito D, Schwartz B, Moretti V, Goldberg B (2016) Glenoid version and size: does gender, ethnicity, or body size play a role? Int Orthop 40(11):2347–2353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3201-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Tae-Hyun Ha for providing illustrations. This research was supported by the convergence technology development program for bionic arm through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science & ICT (No. 2014M3C1B2048422). IRB: Exemption number S2017-0841-0001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Chong Hua Hospital, Don Mariano Cui St., Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City, Philippines

    Julius Kho

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Carolus Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Erica Kholinne

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Erica Kholinne, Sungjoon Lim, Hanpyo Hong, Jae-Man Kwak, Yucheng Sun, Kyoung-Hwan Koh & In-Ho Jeon

  4. Department of Hand Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China

    Yucheng Sun

Authors
  1. Julius Kho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica Kholinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sungjoon Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanpyo Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jae-Man Kwak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yucheng Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kyoung-Hwan Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. In-Ho Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to In-Ho Jeon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kho, J., Kholinne, E., Lim, S. et al. Arthroscopic bare spot method underestimates true bone defect in bony Bankart lesion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139, 1269–1275 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03195-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03195-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation