暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Posterior glenohumeral instability represents a wide spectrum of pathoanatomic processes. A key consideration is the interplay between the posterior capsulolabral complex and the osseous anatomy of the glenoid and humeral head. Stability is dependent upon both the presence of soft tissue pathology (eg, tears to the posteroinferior labrum or posterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament, glenoid bone loss, reverse Hill Sachs lesions, and pathologic glenoid retroversion or dysplasia) and dynamic stabilizing forces. This review highlights unique pathoanatomic features of posterior shoulder instability and associated biomechanics that may exist in patients with posterior glenohumeral instability.

Overhead athletes with anterior, posterior, and multidirectional shoulder instability present with a wide range of symptoms, especially considering the injury mechanism and affected supportive structures. As such, the management of shoulder instability is widely variable and relies on rehabilitation, operative management, and sport-specific considerations, such as positional and seasonal demands on the athlete. Biomechanical analysis may further aid in the recovery process or serve as a predictive tool to identify an increased risk for injury.

Anterior glenohumeral instability is one of the most common injuries suffered from sport. Despite padding and conditioning, the shoulder joint remains particularly vulnerable to injury, especially in the setting of contact. The overall rate of anterior instability is reported to be 0.12 injuries per 1000 athlete exposures, although this is increased up to 0.40 to 0.51 in the contact athlete. Successful treatment requires consideration of restoring stability while minimizing loss of glenohumeral motion. Common treatment strategies involve addressing the pathology that results from anterior shoulder dislocation including labral detachment as well as bony defects to the humeral head and glenoid.

In-season management of anterior shoulder instability in athletes is a complex problem. Athletes often wish to play through their current season, though recurrent instability rates are high, particularly in contact sports. Athletes are generally considered safe to return to play when they are relatively pain-free, and their strength and range of motion match the uninjured extremity. If an athlete is unable to progress toward recovering strength and range of motion, surgical management is an option, though this is often a season-ending decision.

In the evaluation of shoulder instability, recognition of relevant pathology on imaging is critical to planning a surgical treatment that minimizes the risk for recurrent instability. The purpose of this review is to (1) discuss the use of radiography, computed tomography, and MRI in evaluating shoulder instability and (2) demonstrate how various imaging modalities are useful in identifying critical pathologies in the shoulder that are relevant for treatment.

Shoulder glenohumeral joint dislocations and subluxations are a relatively common injury among athletic populations. Evaluating the patient both on the field initially and through early recovery helps to determine the best treatment strategies and predict the natural history of each unique injury.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between SLAP lesions and the shoulder joint capsule thickness via MR arthrography. Understanding the relationship between SLAP lesions and the joint capsule thickness is important because an increased capsule thickness may indicate chronic inflammation and contribute to persistent pain and dysfunction. These findings have significant clinical implications for the diagnosis, management, and treatment strategies of shoulder joint pathologies. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the MR arthrography results of 78 patients who underwent shoulder imaging at Düzce University Medical Faculty between October 2021 and November 2024. The study included patients diagnosed with SLAP lesions and compared them with a control group without such pathology. Data on joint capsule thickness at the level of the axillary recess, SLAP lesion type, cuff pathology, and demographic information were collected and analyzed. Results: The study included 32 patients with SLAP lesions and 46 control subjects. The mean age of the patients was 44.75 ± 14.18 years, whereas the control group had a mean age of 38.76 ± 13 years. The patient group presented a significantly greater mean anterior capsule thickness (3.13 ± 1.28 mm vs. 1.72 ± 0.7 mm, p = 0.0001), posterior capsule thickness (3.35 ± 1.32 mm vs. 1.95 ± 1.06 mm, p = 0.0001), and maximum capsule thickness (3.6 ± 1.32 mm vs. 2.06 ± 1.01 mm, p = 0.0001) in the axillary recess. SLAP type 2 lesions were the most common type (43.76%) in the patient group. Conclusions: This study revealed a significant association between SLAP lesions and an increased shoulder joint capsule thickness. These findings suggest that MR arthrography is an effective tool for assessing the joint capsule changes associated with labral tears, contributing to the better diagnosis and management of shoulder joint pathologies in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic suture anchor fixation and open screw fixation for acute large anterior glenoid rim fractures.
METHODS: This study enrolled patients with acute large anterior glenoid rim fractures treated with arthroscopic suture anchor fixation (group A) or open screw fixation (group O) from January 2013 to June 2020 with a minimum follow-up of＞2 years. The Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Rowe score, Constant score, range of motion (ROM), recurrent instability rate, and complications were recorded as clinical results. The quality of the postoperative reduction, reconstructed glenoid sizes, rate of fracture healing, and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were evaluated as radiological outcomes.
RESULTS: This retrospective study included 66 patients, including 37 in Group A and 29 in Group O with a mean follow-up of 46.9 (range, 24.3-94.2) months and a mean patient age of 46.8 (range, 21-69) years. No significant differences were found in the clinical outcomes between the two groups. A significant ROM limitation in all planes was found in both groups and group O showed more limitations in external rotation at the side (ERs) (18° vs. 10°, P = 0.002). The reduction quality was better in group O (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of reconstructed glenoid size (101.6% ± 4.6% vs. 100.6% ± 7.1%, P = 0.460) and the rate of OA progression (26.9% vs. 20%, P = 0.525).
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic suture anchor fixation and open screw fixation achieved similar clinical outcomes, reconstructed glenoid sizes, and OA progression in patients with acute large anterior glenoid rim fractures. Arthroscopic suture fixation showed a poorer quality of reduction but less ERs limitations.