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

Devan Pancura M.Sc. , Felicia Licht M.Sc. , Ivan Wong M.D., F.R.C.S.C., Dip Sports Medicine, M.A.cM., F.A.A.N.A.
{"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 M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Felicia Licht M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Ivan Wong M.D., F.R.C.S.C., Dip Sports Medicine, M.A.cM., F.A.A.N.A.","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.02.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To compare the clinical outcomes between patients who received arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) using distal tibia allograft with button fixation versus screw fixation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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 (<em>P</em> = .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 (<em>P</em> = .003) and latest follow-up (<em>P</em> = .019) compared with the button group. Recurrent dislocation was observed in 9 patients (40.9%), all of whom underwent button fixation (<em>P</em> &lt; .001). Two patients in the screw group experienced hardware complications (<em>P</em> = .488). Individuals who underwent button fixation were significantly more likely to undergo a revision surgery for recurrent instability (<em>P</em> = .011). Individuals in the button group demonstrated a significantly smaller mean graft anteroposterior diameter postoperatively (<em>P</em> &lt; .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level III, retrospective comparative case series.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":"41 9","pages":"Pages 3462-3472"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806325001550","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项匹配队列分析:关节镜下同种异体胫骨远端解剖关节盂重建术中螺钉固定效果更好,再脱位发生率更低,骨吸收率更低。
目的:比较关节镜下解剖性关节盂重建术(AAGR)中胫骨远端同种异体移植物带扣固定与螺钉固定的临床效果。方法:对2012年至2021年间所有接受AAGR螺钉或按钮固定的患者进行回顾性图表分析。患者根据性别、手术类型和手术后时间按1:1的比例进行匹配。所有纳入的患者至少进行了两年的临床随访。研究结果比较了西安大略省肩关节不稳定性(WOSI)指数评分、不稳定性复发、翻修手术发生率和CT读数。结果:共纳入44例患者,每组22例。螺钉组术前盂骨丢失22.57±8.06%,螺钉组术前盂骨丢失22.92±8.84% (p = 0.898)。从术前到最新随访,两组患者的WOSI均有显著改善,但螺钉组患者在两年(p = 0.003)和最新随访(p = 0.019)时的WOSI评分均明显高于纽扣组。9例(40.9%)复发脱位,均行钮扣固定(p < 0.001)。螺钉组2例出现硬体并发症(p = 0.488)。接受钮扣固定的个体更有可能因复发性不稳定而接受翻修手术(p = 0.011)。钮扣组的个体术后表现出更小的平均移植物AP直径(p < 0.001)。结论:在至少两年的随访中,双螺钉固定的AAGR显著提高了WOSI评分。钮扣固定有明显较高的再脱位发生率。x线检查结果显示,平均而言,钮扣固定比螺钉固定具有更高程度的骨吸收和更小的术后盂内关节宽度。证据级别:III级,回顾性比较病例系列。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Instructions for Authors Announcements Masthead Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1