Screw Fixation has Better Outcomes, Lower Incidence of Re-dislocation 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 Re-dislocation 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 based on sex, type of surgery, and time since surgery. All patients who were included had a minimum clinical follow-up of two years. Study outcomes compared Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index scores, recurrence of instability, incidence of revision surgeries, and CT readings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>44 patients were included with 22 patients in each group. The pre-operative glenoid bone loss was 22.57 ± 8.06% in the screw group and 22.92 ± 8.84% in the button group (p = 0.898). Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in WOSI from pre-operative to latest follow-up, however patients in the screw group demonstrated significantly better WOSI scores at both two-year (p = 0.003) and latest follow-up (p = 0.019) compared to the button group. Recurrent dislocation was observed in 9 patients (40.9%), all of whom underwent button fixation (p < 0.001). Two patients in the screw group experienced hardware complications (p = 0.488). Individuals who underwent button fixation were significantly more likely to undergo a revision surgery for recurrent instability (p = 0.011). Individuals in the button group demonstrated a significantly smaller mean graft AP diameter postoperatively (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AAGR with both screw fixation results in significantly improved WOSI scores at minimum two-year follow-up. Button fixation has a significantly higher incidence of re-dislocation. Radiographic findings suggest that on average, button fixation results in higher grade bone resorption and subsequently smaller post-operative glenoid AP 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":"2025-03-06","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 based on sex, type of surgery, and time since surgery. All patients who were included had a minimum clinical follow-up of two years. Study outcomes compared Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) Index scores, recurrence of instability, incidence of revision surgeries, and CT readings.
Results: 44 patients were included with 22 patients in each group. The pre-operative glenoid bone loss was 22.57 ± 8.06% in the screw group and 22.92 ± 8.84% in the button group (p = 0.898). Both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in WOSI from pre-operative to latest follow-up, however patients in the screw group demonstrated significantly better WOSI scores at both two-year (p = 0.003) and latest follow-up (p = 0.019) compared to the button group. Recurrent dislocation was observed in 9 patients (40.9%), all of whom underwent button fixation (p < 0.001). Two patients in the screw group experienced hardware complications (p = 0.488). Individuals who underwent button fixation were significantly more likely to undergo a revision surgery for recurrent instability (p = 0.011). Individuals in the button group demonstrated a significantly smaller mean graft AP diameter postoperatively (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: AAGR with both screw fixation results in significantly improved WOSI scores at minimum two-year follow-up. Button fixation has a significantly higher incidence of re-dislocation. Radiographic findings suggest that on average, button fixation results in higher grade bone resorption and subsequently smaller post-operative glenoid AP 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
