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. , Felicia Licht M.Sc. , 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> < .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> < .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.
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.