* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Bankart Lesion of the Shoulder
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
Jocelyn Wittstein, MD Duke University Medical Center NC Medical Society Sports Medicine Symposium July 8, 2006 Case Presentation • 21 yo Duke defensive back • Anterior dislocation of L shoulder 4/2004 • Treated with wedge brace with 30º ER x 3 weeks • Several recurrent subluxations, but able to make All ACC • 2nd dislocation 7/2005 when defending a pass w/shoulder abducted in ER Case Presentation • PMHx: unremarkable • No medications • Social Hx: Duke student, denies EtOH, tob Case Presentation • Physical Exam – – – – – Mild TTP anteriorly Passive ER 75º at side Positive apprehension test SILT 5/5 strength throughout Importance of lateral views 4/2004 7/2005 Surgery 11/2005 • EUA – 2+ anterior – 1+ posteior – 1+ sulcus • Arthroscopy Arthroscopy TUBS Traumatic Unilateral Bankart lesion Surgery Multidirectional Instability Atraumatic Multidirectional- Redundancy of IGHLC, capsular laxity Bilateral Rehab Inferior capsular shift History • Hippocrates, 400 BC • Perthes, 1906 • Bankart, 1939 – 27 traumatic dislocations – Drill holes through glenoid and suture – No recurrence – All with FROM Epidemiology • Atraumatic instability is most common in the second decade of life • Traumatic instability is most common in the third decade of life Etiology • Traumatic - Bankart lesion • detachment of anterior capsulolabral complex from the glenoid rim • leads to recurrent anterior instability HH G Shoulder Arthroscopy, Tibone et al 2003 Recurrence Rowe JBJS 1956 • 500 shoulders treated for dislocation • 313 follow up, mean 4.8 years • incidence of recurrence – <20yo - 83% – 20-40yo - 63% – >40yo - 16% • age at time of initial dislocation is the most significant prognostic factor Natural History Taylor et al AJSM 1997 • • • • • • 116 young(<24yo), first time dislocators arthroscopic vs nonoperative 63 chose arthroscopic 97% with Bankart lesion 90% Hill-Sachs, no rotator cuff tears 90% non-op developed recurrent instability Associated Injuries Hawkins JBJS(B) 1982 • • • • • Prospective, 40 pts with ant dislocation ages 40-83 avg. f/u 33 mos 36/40 major RC tear 6/40 brachial plexus injury Circumferential Injury • Speer et al (JBJS Am 76:1819-1826, 1994) – simulated Bankart lesion alone could not create significant increases in translation – plastic deformation of the anterior and posterior capsule may contribute to instability Anatomy • Static factors • Dynamic factors Static Factors • • • • • Articular version Articular conformity Glenoid labrum Capsuloligamentous structures Negative intraarticular pressure Glenoid Labrum • Fibrous ring attaching to the glenoid articular cartilage • long head of biceps blends with superior labrum • IGHL blends into the inferior labrum Glenoid Labrum • Deepens the concavity of glenoid • Acts as a “bumper” • Increases the surface area of contact • Stabilizing role during rotator cuff contraction Cooper et al, JBJS 1992, 74A Capsuloligamentous Structures • Superior Glenohumeral and Coracohumeral Ligaments • Middle Glenohumeral ligament • Inferior Glenohumeral ligament complex • Posterior Capsule Shoulder Arthroscopy, Tibone et al 2003 IGHLC • Anterior band – Resists anterior translation in abd, ER • Axillary pouch – Thinner, acts like hammock • Posterior band – acts as a restraint to post translation in abd, IR Shoulder Arthroscopy, Tibone et al 2003 Dynamic factors • Rotator cuff • Scapular rotators Rotator Cuff • Provides dynamic stability by joint compression • Prevents superior migration of humeral head during abduction Anterior Dislocation • Humeral head forced out anteriorly and inferiorly • Capsulolabral disruption • Hill-Sachs lesion www.weiss ortho.com Bankart Lesion • Traumatic detachment of the glenoid labrum • Seen in over 85% of cases • Inferior glenohumeral ligament injury Shoulder Arthroscopy, Tibone et al 2003 Bankart Lesion • Disrupts concavitycompression effect during rotator cuff contraction • eliminates “bumper” effect • decreases depth of socket by 50% • reduced resistance to translation by 20% www.orthop.washington.edu Patient History • • • • h/o trauma? Require reduction? Voluntary dislocation/reduction? Shoulder slips? Clicking? Physical Exam • ROM (passive and active) • Cuff strength (RTC tears 90% >40 yo) • Neurovascular (axillary nerve injuries in 9.3%; all recovered) – Gumina et al, JBJS Br. Vol 79(4), pgs.540-543, 1997) • Hyperlaxity testing • Provocative testing Hyperlaxity Testing • Generalized laxity • Drawer test • Sulcus sign Orthohyperguides.com Drawer Test Shoulder Arthroscopy, Snyder 2003 Sulcus Sign Shoulder Arthroscopy, Snyder 2003 Apprehension/Relocation Test Shoulder Arthroscopy, Snyder, 2003 Imaging • Plain films – AP, scapular Y, axillary view – Stryker notch view – West point view Shoulder Arthroscopy, Snyder 2003 Stryker Notch View -FF 135º -cant beam 45º cephalad -demonstrates Hill-Sachs lesion Chen et al, AJSM 33 (6), 2005 West Point View -prone -shdr elevated 8 cm -beam canted 25º medially and superiorly -glenoid rim fxs Chen et al, AJSM 33 (6), 2005 MRI/MRA Hill-Sachs Imaging- CT -useful in determining size of glenoid defect Chen et al 2005 Nonoperative Treatment • Activity Restriction • NSAIDs • Physical Therapy • Rotator cuff strengthening • Periscapular strengthening • Immobilize in 30º of ER Ancient Methods of Shoulder Reductions Traction/Counter Traction Stimson Maneuver • A favorite in EDs Staso Technique Reducing Shoulder Dislocation • Milch technique Reduction under GA Nonoperative Treatment Itoi et al, JBJS 2001 • Immoblization in 30º ER coapts labrum Conservative RX with ER Brace Brace for Sports • Prevents Abduction • Prevents ER • Repair after season Surgery • Goals: • Reattach labrum to glenoid rim • Address capsule laxity if present • Reconstruct glenoid defects >20% • Reconstruct Hill-Sachs lesion (allograft, muscle tendon transfer) if involves >30-50% Nonanatomic open repairs • 1940, Magnuson-Stack procedure • 1948, Putti-Platt procedure – Loss of ER, capsulorrhaphy arthropathy • 1956, Dutoit staple capsulorrhaphy – Staple migration, recurrence, OA • 1958, Bristow procedure – 71% with OA at 20 yrs (Singer et al JBJS B 1995) – 85% w/o recurrence at 26 yrs (Schroder et al AJSM 2006) Open Bankart Repair • Avulsed capsule is attached back to the glenoid rim – Sutures – Suture anchors • +/- Capsular imbrication Bankart Procedure Rowe et al JBJS 1978 • • • • • • 145 pts with recurrent anterior instability 86% traumatic, 14% atraumatic open Bankart repair avg. f/u 6yrs 5 recurrences(3.5%) 97% good or excellent results Open Repairs • Disadvantages – Blood loss – Surgical time – Infection – Loss of external rotation Arthroscopic Repair • Transglenoid sutures – Risk suprscapular nerve injury • Tacs – 6% reabsoprtion synovitis • Suture Anchors Arthroscopic Repair Shoulder Arthroscopy, Tibone et al 2003 Arthroscopic vs. Open repair w/suture anchors Fabbriciani et al, Arthroscopy 20(5), 2004 • • • • • • • Randomized, prospective 30 arthroscopic, 30 open Mean age 25, 26 Similar time to surgery after traumatic dislocation 2 yr f/u No recurrence in either group Open group w/significantly less ER 4-9 yr f/u of Open Bankarts Mangnusson et al AJSM 2002 • • • • • 47 shoulders s/p open repair Ave age 25 Mean f/u 69 months 7º ER lost vs nonop side 11% w/recurrent dislocation Shoulder Arthroscopy, Snyder 2003 • Why Arthroscopic? – decrease in surgical time – decrease in blood loss – smaller incision – less loss of motion – better visualization of pathology OPEN VS ARTHROSCOPIC REPAIR What does it cost and how effective is it?? F/U 14 – 31 MONTHS • ARTHROSCOPIC • OPEN • • • • • • • • (Panalok + Knotless) Avg. age = 36 yo. 1/18 recurrent instability Regional ISB in all 17/18 home same day Surgical time = 66 min. Total O.R. time = 83 min. O.R. charges = $4506 • • • • • • • • Bankart through drill holes Avg. age = 23 yo. 1/18 recurrent dislocation General anesthesia in all All 18 stayed overnight Surgical time = 96 min. Total O.R. time = 129 min. O.R. charges = $4550 • Total Hospital charges = $ 6609 • Total Hospital charges = $8192 Warner and Zarins, MGH Who Should Be Stabilized Arthroscopically? • Ideal patient – Traumatic anterior instability – Thick, mobile Bankart – Little of no discernable capsular laxity Who Should Be Stabilized Arthroscopically? • Contraindications – Large Hill-Sachs lesion – Moderate Glenoid defects (>20%) – Contact athletes? – Marked anterior laxity – Poor quality of ligamentous structures Summary • Traumatic shoulder instability typically occurs in 3rd decade • <40 yo: dislocationBankart lesion w/recurrent dislocation • >40 yo: recurrence unlikley, cuff tears common • Treatment: open vs arthroscopic Bankart repair