Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40309333›Full record

ArticleVideo journal of sports medicine

Arthroscopic Posterior Glenoid Augmentation With Distal Tibial Allograft.

Robert S Dean, Eric J Dennis, LeeAnne F Torres, Danielle E Rider, Nicholas A Trasolini, Max D Gehrman, Brian R Waterman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Video journal of sports medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Robert S DeanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Eric J DennisDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
LeeAnne F TorresDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Danielle E RiderWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4430-7066
Nicholas A TrasoliniDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9458-8623
Max D GehrmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6806-601X
Brian R WatermanDivision of Sports Medicine, Wake Forest University Athletics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Posterior glenohumeral instability is much less common than anterior instability, and there is a paucity of studies looking at glenoid bone loss as it relates to posterior instability. However, while the data are not as robust, posterior glenoid bone loss can lead to recurrent instability and failed soft tissue procedures. Arthroscopic posterior glenoid augmentation with distal tibial allograft (DTA) is a minimally invasive option to restore stability and preserve function. Indications: The primary indication for posterior glenoid augmentation is posterior instability with >20% to 25% posterior glenoid bone loss or recurrent posterior instability after prior stabilization procedure. In this case, the patient is a 21-year-old man with recurrent instability after 2 prior soft tissue stabilization procedures. Technique Description: The patient was positioned in lateral decubitus, and portals were established. Arthroscopic evaluation was performed to assess the labrum, biceps, rotator cuff, glenoid, and humeral head. Glenoid mobilization was performed, and an incision was made for introduction of the bone block. The glenoid was prepared, and a trial was used to guide preparation of the graft, which was harvested from the articular cartilage of the distal tibia. The graft was irrigated and bathed in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and then introduced and positioned for maximal coverage of the defect. Screw fixation was performed with two 3.75-mm screws. The posterior capsule was reapproximated, and a layered closure was performed. Results: Previous studies have reported significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes, high rates of healing, and no cases of recurrent instability after DTA for anterior glenoid bone loss. Additional studies have reported few patients with recurrent instability and no instances of partial or non-union. Significant loss of range of motion has not been reported in the most recent case series. One previous study reported significantly improved patient-reported outcomes and near-complete osseous reabsorption with DTA after failed Latarjet procedure. Discussion/Conclusion: Arthroscopic posterior glenoid augmentation with DTA is a viable treatment option for patients with shoulder pain and instability with >20% to 25% posterior glenoid bone loss and/or following prior stabilization procedures.

Indexed as

dislocationdistal tibial allograftglenoid bone lossposterior glenoidshoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID40309333
PMCPMC11905015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.