Evaluation and Management of Failed Shoulder Instability Surgery
António Cartucho*, Nuno Moura, Marco Sarmento
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2017
Issue: Suppl-6, M8
First Page: 897
Last Page: 908
Publisher Id: TOORTHJ-11-897
Article History:Received Date: 21/05/2016
Revision Received Date: 27/10/2016
Acceptance Date: 28/10/2016
Electronic publication date: 31/08/2017
Collection year: 2017
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Failed shoulder instability surgery is mostly considered to be the recurrence of shoulder dislocation but subluxation, painful or non-reliable shoulder are also reasons for patient dissatisfaction and should be considered in the notion.
The authors performed a revision of the literature and online contents on evaluation and management of failed shoulder instability surgery.
When we look at the reasons for failure of shoulder instability surgery we point the finger at poor patient selection, technical error and an additional traumatic event. More than 80% of surgical failures, for shoulder instability, are associated with bone loss. Quantification of glenoid bone loss and investigation of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion are determining facts. Adequate imaging studies are determinant to assess labrum and capsular lesions and to rule out associated pathology as rotator cuff tears. CT-scan is the method of choice to diagnose and quantify bone loss. Arthroscopic soft tissue procedures are indicated in patients with minimal bone loss and no contact sports. Open soft tissue procedures should be performed in patients with small bone defects, with hiperlaxity and practicing contact sports. Soft tissue techniques, as postero-inferior capsular plication and remplissage, may be used in patients with less than 25% of glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions. Bone block procedures should be used for glenoid larger bone defects in the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion or in the presence of poor soft tissue quality. A tricortical iliac crest graft may be used as a primary procedure or as a salvage procedure after failure of a Bristow or a Latarjet procedure. Less frequently, the surgeon has to address the Hill-Sachs lesion. When a 30% loss of humeral head circumference is present a filling graft should be used.
Reasons for failure are multifactorial. In order to address this entity, surgeons must correctly identify the causes and tailor the right solution.