Screw Fixation Has Better Outcomes, Lower Incidence of Redislocation, and Lower Bone Resorption Than Button Fixation for Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction With Distal Tibia Allograft: A Matched Cohort Analysis.
{"title":"Screw Fixation Has Better Outcomes, Lower Incidence of Redislocation, and Lower Bone Resorption Than Button Fixation for Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction With Distal Tibia Allograft: A Matched Cohort Analysis.","authors":"Devan Pancura, Felicia Licht, Ivan Wong","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.02.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes between patients who received arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) using distal tibia allograft with button fixation versus screw fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients who underwent AAGR with button or screw fixation between 2012 and 2021. Patients were matched at a 1:1 ratio on the basis of sex, type of surgery, and time since surgery. All patients who were included had a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. Study outcomes compared Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index scores, recurrence of instability, incidence of revision surgeries, and computed tomography readings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 44 patients were included with 22 patients in each group. The preoperative glenoid bone loss was 22.57 ± 8.06% in the screw group and 22.92 ± 8.84% in the button group (P = .898). Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in WOSI from preoperative to latest follow-up; however, patients in the screw group demonstrated significantly better WOSI scores at both 2-year (P = .003) and latest follow-up (P = .019) compared with the button group. Recurrent dislocation was observed in 9 patients (40.9%), all of whom underwent button fixation (P < .001). Two patients in the screw group experienced hardware complications (P = .488). Individuals who underwent button fixation were significantly more likely to undergo a revision surgery for recurrent instability (P = .011). Individuals in the button group demonstrated a significantly smaller mean graft anteroposterior diameter postoperatively (P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AAGR with both screw fixation results in significantly improved WOSI scores at minimum 2-year follow-up. Button fixation has a significantly greater incidence of redislocation. Radiographic findings suggest that on average, button fixation results in greater-grade bone resorption and subsequently smaller postoperative glenoid anteroposterior width than screw fixation.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, retrospective comparative case series.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2025.02.034","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes between patients who received arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) using distal tibia allograft with button fixation versus screw fixation.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients who underwent AAGR with button or screw fixation between 2012 and 2021. Patients were matched at a 1:1 ratio on the basis of sex, type of surgery, and time since surgery. All patients who were included had a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. Study outcomes compared Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index scores, recurrence of instability, incidence of revision surgeries, and computed tomography readings.
Results: In total, 44 patients were included with 22 patients in each group. The preoperative glenoid bone loss was 22.57 ± 8.06% in the screw group and 22.92 ± 8.84% in the button group (P = .898). Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in WOSI from preoperative to latest follow-up; however, patients in the screw group demonstrated significantly better WOSI scores at both 2-year (P = .003) and latest follow-up (P = .019) compared with the button group. Recurrent dislocation was observed in 9 patients (40.9%), all of whom underwent button fixation (P < .001). Two patients in the screw group experienced hardware complications (P = .488). Individuals who underwent button fixation were significantly more likely to undergo a revision surgery for recurrent instability (P = .011). Individuals in the button group demonstrated a significantly smaller mean graft anteroposterior diameter postoperatively (P < .001).
Conclusions: AAGR with both screw fixation results in significantly improved WOSI scores at minimum 2-year follow-up. Button fixation has a significantly greater incidence of redislocation. Radiographic findings suggest that on average, button fixation results in greater-grade bone resorption and subsequently smaller postoperative glenoid anteroposterior width than screw fixation.
Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative case series.
期刊介绍：
Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
