Search

Background: Recognition of posterior glenohumeral instability has increased in young, athletic populations, leading to evolution in operative approaches to management. As with anterior instability surgery, successful treatment for these challenging injuries is dependent on understanding the key principles of pathology and restoration of the functional anatomy. Indications: Operative management of posterior glenohumeral instability is indicated for recurrent instability events or persistent pain refractory to physical therapy in the setting of posterior labral pathology with or without bone loss. Technique: In this video article, we present our approach to operative management of posterior glenohumeral instability in a young, athletic population, as developed through extensive experience in military and athlete populations and supported by research. Our approach to posterior glenohumeral instability is to restore the functional anatomy of the bone, labrum, and capsuloligamentous static restraints. We consider concomitant pathology and bone loss as components of these restraints that need to be restored to achieve a stable, painless shoulder. Using standard portals and tools, we prepare the glenoid and mobilize the labrum. When present, large osseous lesions can be restored using allograft distal tibia. We then repair and superiorize the inferior labrum, taking care to create a secure buttress against translation by positioning anchors at the edge of the chondral surface and everting the interior flap of tissue. If capsular pathology is present, this is also addressed. In the setting of significant posterior glenoid bone loss, we reconstruct the osseous support with a distal tibial allograft, which we perform arthroscopically and augment with labral repair. Using these techniques, surgeons can expect a low overall failure rate. In our young, highly active population, we observed 17.2% failure by 5 years, although this is dependent on multiple factors including age and bone loss. Discussion: Outcomes for posterior glenohumeral instability can be excellent with both nonoperative and operative treatments. When operative intervention is pursued, it is important to critically evaluate the anatomy, place portals considerately, and functionally restore the damaged structures. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Introduction: Traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability events result in a capsulolabral (Bankart lesion) and/or osseous injury with subsequent attritional bone loss, particularly with recurrence. Up to 88% of patients with recurrent instability experience glenoid bone loss, which predisposes to future dislocations and subluxations, even with arthroscopic capsulolabral repair. The surgical management of glenoid bone loss includes a number of different techniques such as the Latarjet or coracoid transfer as well as other osseous and osteoarticular autografts and allografts. However, operative management of shoulder instability has increasingly shifted toward arthroscopic approaches with preservation of anatomy when possible. Indications: Arthroscopic-assisted allograft distal tibia bone block augmentation to the anterior glenoid is indicated for revision anterior glenohumeral instability procedures with anterior bone loss and in primary cases of anterior instability with critical bone loss. Technique: Our technique for nonrigid arthroscopic anterior glenoid reconstruction with allograft distal tibia and anterior labral repair is performed preferentially in the lateral position without necessitating patient repositioning. The preplanned tibial bone block is prepared on a back table prior to the arthroscopic procedure. After creation of portals and elevation of labral tissue, a guide and drill are used to introduce a retrograde reamer which is deployed to create a perpendicular edge for apposition of the allograft tibia. The bone block is then introduced through a rotator interval portal by pulling sutures retrograde through glenoid bone tunnels and is secured to the prepared surface medial to the liberated labrum. The articular surface of the graft and glenoid are aligned and suture-based fixation is used to compress the bone block against the native glenoid. The anterior labral tissue is then mobilized over the graft and repaired to the native glenoid when possible. Description/Conclusion: The benefits of allograft tibia augmentation for anterior instability with glenoid bone loss include an anatomic joint surface restoration including articular cartilage, lack of donor site morbidity, and a minimally invasive arthroscopic approach. When performed arthroscopically and with nonrigid fixation, this technique permits concurrent anterior labral repair and anatomic reconstruction, safe graft passage without necessity of a far medial portal, and expeditious return to function.

Background: Posterior glenoid bone loss occurs in more than two-thirds of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability, with 14% to 22% having greater than subcritical bone loss (13.5%), a marker for potential need for bony augmentation versus soft tissue-only procedures. Several techniques are described to augment either the version or volume of the glenoid surface including osteotomies, autograft transfers, and allograft tibia transfers. Indications: Arthroscopic-assisted allograft distal tibia bone block augmentation to the posterior glenoid is indicated for revision posterior instability procedures with posterior bone loss and in primary cases of posterior instability with critical bone loss. Technique Description: Arthroscopic posterior glenoid reconstruction with allograft distal tibia and posterior labral repair in the lateral position is presented. This technique uses standard instrument sets and requires no patient repositioning. The preplanned tibial bone block is prepared on a back table either prior to, or concurrently with, arthroscopic procedure. After creation of high posterior portal and standard anterior portal, a sucker-shaver and burr are used to create a perpendicular edge for apposition of the allograft tibia. The bone block is introduced through a longitudinal incision and underdelivered to the prepared surface under the liberated labrum. The articular surface of the graft and glenoid are aligned and cannulated screws are used to compress the bone block against the native glenoid. The posterior labral tissue is then mobilized over the graft and repaired to the native glenoid. Results: Arthroscopic distal tibial allograft augmentation for posterior bone loss restored stability and function in a small cohort of patients. Patients reported improved stability in the immediate postoperative course, with restoration of motion by 2 months. Push-ups, pull-ups, and return to full active duty without restrictions is allowed at 6 months postoperatively. Imaging at 3 months postoperatively has shown excellent graft healing. Discussion: The benefits of allograft tibia augmentation for posterior instability with glenoid bone loss include an anatomic joint surface restoration including articular cartilage, lack of donor site morbidity, and a minimally invasive approach. When performed arthroscopically, this technique permits concurrent posterior labral repair and anatomic reconstruction.

Introduction:. Orthopaedic surgery ranks among the least racially and gender diverse medical/surgical specialties. United States military surgeons train in military or military-funded residency positions to care for a markedly diverse population; however, the composition and diversity of these training programs have not been previously assessed. The purpose of this study was to analyze the trends of physician diversity in military orthopaedics in comparison with other surgical specialties over time. Methods:. We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating matriculation into first year of residency training in US military surgical training programs between 2002 and 2020. In total, 9,124 applicants were reviewed. We collected matriculant self-reported race/ethnicity and sex and the medical/specialty program. We considered under-represented minorities as those who reported their race as African American, Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native, other, or who reported ethnicity as Hispanic. We calculated changes in persons accepted to training positions over time and used linear regression to model trends in diversity among orthopaedic matriculating residents when compared with other surgical subspecialities over time. Results:. Across all surgical subspecialities, the average change in percent women was 0.94% per year for the study period (p < 0.01). The average annual percent women entering orthopaedic surgery residency programs was 14% for the 18-year study period. Across all surgical subspecialties, the average change for accepted applicants from groups underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was 1.01% per year for the study period (p < 0.01). The average annual percent URiM entering orthopaedic surgery residency programs was 17% for the 18-year study period. The annual change of women and URiM entering military orthopaedic residencies was 0.10% and 1.52%, respectively. Conclusions:. Despite statistically significant improvements, recruitment efforts as used to date fall far short of reversing sexual, racial, and ethnic disparities in military orthopaedic residencies. Orthopaedics has a lower representation of both women and physicians with minority backgrounds when compared with many surgical subspecialties. Additional interventions are still necessary to increase diversity for military orthopaedic surgeons.