BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if capsular repair used in conjunction with the Latarjet procedure results in significant alterations in glenohumeral rotational range of motion and translation. METHODS: Glenohumeral rotational range of motion and translation were measured in eight cadaveric shoulders in 90degrees of abduction in both the scapular and coronal planes under the following four conditions: intact glenoid, 20% bony Bankart lesion, modified Latarjet without capsular repair, and modified Latarjet with capsular repair. RESULTS: Creation of a 20% bony Bankart lesion led to significant increases in anterior and inferior glenohumeral translation and rotational range of motion (p < 0.005). The Latarjet procedure restored anterior and inferior stability compared to the bony Bankart condition. It also led to significant increases in glenohumeral internal and external rotational range of motion relative to both the intact and bony Bankart conditions (p < 0.05). The capsular repair from the coracoacromial ligament stump to the native capsule did not significantly affect translations relative to the Latarjet condition; however it did cause a significant decrease in external rotation in both the scapular and coronal planes (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The Latarjet procedure is effective in restoring anteroinferior glenohumeral stability. The addition of a capsular repair does not result in significant added stability; however, it does appear to have the effect of restricting glenohumeral external rotational range of motion relative to the Latarjet procedure performed without capsular repair.
Biomechanical Phenomena/*physiology ; Female ; Humans ; Humerus/physiology/surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Range of Motion, Articular/*physiology ; Scapula/physiology/surgery ; Shoulder Joint/*physiology/*surgery

Background: Recent literature suggests that three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) can replace 3D computed tomography (3D CT) when evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. We aimed to examine if 2D MRI in conjunction with a validated predictive formula for assessment of glenoid height is equivalent to the gold standard 3D CT scans for patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability. Methods: Patients with recurrent shoulder instability and available imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Glenoid height on 3D CT and 2D MRI was measured by two blinded raters. Difference and equivalence testing were performed using a paired t-test and two one-sided tests, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test for interrater reliability, and percent agreement between the measurements of one reviewer was used to assess intrarater reliability. Results: Using an equivalence margin of 1 mm, 3D CT and 2D MRI were found to be different (p = 0.123). The mean glenoid height was significantly different when measured on 2D MRI (39.09 ± 2.93 mm) compared to 3D CT (38.71 ± 2.89 mm) (p = 0.032). The mean glenoid width was significantly different between 3D CT (30.13 ± 2.43 mm) and 2D MRI (27.45 ± 1.72 mm) (p < 0.001). The 3D CT measurements had better interrater agreement (ICC, 0.91) than 2D MRI measurements (ICC, 0.8). intrarater agreement was also higher on CT. Conclusions Measurements of glenoid height using 3D CT and 2D MRI with subsequent calculation of the glenoid width using a validated methodology were not equivalent, and 3D CT was superior. Based on the validated methods for the measurement of glenoid bone loss on advanced imaging studies, 3D CT study must be preferred over 2D MRI in order to estimate the amount of glenoid bone loss in candidates for shoulder stabilization surgery and to assist in surgical decision-making.

Background: Recent literature suggests that three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (3D MRI) can replace 3D computed tomography (3D CT) when evaluating glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability. We aimed to examine if 2D MRI in conjunction with a validated predictive formula for assessment of glenoid height is equivalent to the gold standard 3D CT scans for patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability. Methods: Patients with recurrent shoulder instability and available imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Glenoid height on 3D CT and 2D MRI was measured by two blinded raters. Difference and equivalence testing were performed using a paired t-test and two one-sided tests, respectively. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to test for interrater reliability, and percent agreement between the measurements of one reviewer was used to assess intrarater reliability. Results: Using an equivalence margin of 1 mm, 3D CT and 2D MRI were found to be different (p = 0.123). The mean glenoid height was significantly different when measured on 2D MRI (39.09 ± 2.93 mm) compared to 3D CT (38.71 ± 2.89 mm) (p = 0.032). The mean glenoid width was significantly different between 3D CT (30.13 ± 2.43 mm) and 2D MRI (27.45 ± 1.72 mm) (p < 0.001). The 3D CT measurements had better interrater agreement (ICC, 0.91) than 2D MRI measurements (ICC, 0.8). intrarater agreement was also higher on CT. Conclusions Measurements of glenoid height using 3D CT and 2D MRI with subsequent calculation of the glenoid width using a validated methodology were not equivalent, and 3D CT was superior. Based on the validated methods for the measurement of glenoid bone loss on advanced imaging studies, 3D CT study must be preferred over 2D MRI in order to estimate the amount of glenoid bone loss in candidates for shoulder stabilization surgery and to assist in surgical decision-making.