Anterior Instability: Open Distal Tibial Allograft
Phob Ganokroj
Ryan J. Whalen
Matthew T. Provencher
INTRODUCTION
Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability is a concern, especially in a highly active population and collision sport athletes, due to the complex anatomy of the glenohumeral joint that allows for a large range of motion (ROM) while maintaining the stability of the joint. Recurrent anterior instability has a direct correlation with glenoid bone loss (GBL), with more recurrent instability events leading to an increased amount of anterior glenoid bone loss.1 Soft-tissue stabilization procedures, such as the Bankart repair, do not always restore satisfactory stability to the shoulder in a GBL situation. Patients less than 20 years old, instability symptoms lasting more than 5 months, and GBL more than or equal to 15% have been identified as risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization.2 As a result, bony augmentation has been suggested in patients with GBL as low as 13.5%.3 In recent years, the distal tibia allograft (DTA) has been gaining popularity among surgeons, not only as a revision procedure, but also as a primary procedure and wide availability given that the tibia grafts are processed and put up for use by the graft companies.
The rise in popularity of the DTA is largely due to the lack of donor site morbidity, its dense, weight-bearing cartilaginous articular surface, as well as having a similar radius of curvature and contact pressures as the native glenoid.4, 5 and 6
Initially used primarily as a revision procedure, the DTA has been shown to be a viable procedure in the setting of a failed Latarjet procedure. In a short-term follow-up study, Provencher et al7 showed significant improvement in all patient-reported outcomes and 92% graft union rate in patients who had a failed Latarjet procedure revised with a DTA. In the primary setting, Frank et al8 concluded that the DTA procedure has comparable clinical outcomes to the Latarjet procedure. Provencher et al9 demonstrated minimal graft resorption, as well as a clinically stable joint with excellent clinical outcomes in 27 male patients.9 Short-term studies have shown the DTA to be a viable procedure in patients with glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss, but long-term studies are needed to validate these results.
INDICATIONS
The DTA is indicated in young and physically active patients presenting with recurrent glenohumeral instability with more than 25% bone loss. Patients presenting with a prior failed bone block procedure (Latarjet, iliac crest bone graft, distal clavicle autograft) are also indicated for DTA augmentation.
CONTRAINDICATIONS
The DTA is contraindicated in patients without significant bone loss, or patients with infections, and prior nerve issues.
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
A preoperative 3D CT scan reconstruction with the humerus subtracted allows for proper visualization of the bony defect on the glenoid, utilizing the circle-line method (CLM) to measure the percent of GBL. The CLM is performed as follows: (1) On the 3D CT scan with the humerus subtracted, select the best en-face view of the glenoid. (2) Use the posterior and inferior aspects of the glenoid to create a best-fit circle on the glenoid. (3) Trace and measure a vertical line along the glenoid defect that connects two points on the best-fit circle (chord). (4) Measure the diameter of the best-fit circle. (5) Use the chord length to determine the central angle (c):
. (6) Use c to determine the area of the bone loss (B):
(7) Find the area of the best-fit circle: A = πr2. 8) Calculate the percentage of bone loss: percent bone loss = (B/A) × 100.10
. (6) Use c to determine the area of the bone loss (B):
(7) Find the area of the best-fit circle: A = πr2. 8) Calculate the percentage of bone loss: percent bone loss = (B/A) × 100.10A simpler way is the CLM with just diameters. This is performed as follows: (1) Select the best en-face view of the glenoid on 3D CT scan. (2) Use the posterior and inferior aspects of the glenoid to create a best-fit circle on the glenoid. (3) Measure the diameter of the best-fit circle, with Point A on the posterior aspect of the glenoid and Point B on the edge of the best-fit circle (Line AB). (4) Measure the distance between the edge of the defect (Point C) to the best-fit circle at the level of the diameter (Point B) (Line CB). (5) Subtract BC from AB, divide that value by AB, and multiply by 100:
.
.Appropriate matching of the graft to the patient’s glenoid is utilized. A previous study showed that 85.8% of distal tibias demonstrated suitable morphology for glenoid augmentation. The graft dimensions (anteroposterior and mediolateral), as well as the radius of the curvature, are significantly correlated with the height and weight of the donor.11 In general, a male donor to male host and a female donor to female host allow for excellent overall fit.
PREOPERATIVE COUNSELING
The patient should be counseled on the other potential treatment options, as well as each of the benefits and risks of each, to make an informed decision. The general risks of undergoing surgery should also be discussed (ie, infection, bleeding, graft rejection, joint stiffness, etc.). For the DTA procedure specifically, patients should be counseled on the potential to develop osteoarthritis, failure of the allograft to heal (3%-10%), allograft lysis (3%), and the potential for recurrence. Recurrence rates have been reported in 4 studies, ranging from 0% to 2%.7, 8 and 9,12 Older patients, and patients with comorbidities should obtain preoperative clearance from their general practitioner or a cardiologist. If indicated, patients should receive counseling from a psychologist. Patients should be aware of the general rehabilitation protocol following this procedure, which includes a limitation to 30° of external rotation for the first 3 weeks, followed by gradual progressions to full active and passive ranges of motion.13
SURGICAL PROCEDURES
Positioning and Patient Setup
After induction of adequate anesthesia (regional block when possible, with or without general anesthesia), the authors’ preferred surgical positioning is a beach-chair position with the head elevated approximately 45°. Two blue towels are placed behind the medial border of the scapula between the patient and the bed to ensure that the glenoid and scapula do not rotate anteriorly. The operated arm is placed on the commercially available arm holder. An examination under anesthesia (EUA) is performed to evaluate the pathology and confirm the diagnosis.
After the patient is properly positioned, a complete arthroscopic exam is carried out via the standard posterior viewing portal. The aim of the arthroscopic exam is to identify any coexisting intra-articular pathology, such as the anterior capsulolabral complex, biceps tendon, subscapularis tendon, chondral defects, posterior labral tear, and Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs). If a posterior labral tear is identified, the authors prefer to perform the arthroscopic posterior labral repair in a lateral decubitus position first before converting the patient into the beach-chair position for the open portion of the surgery. Additional surgical interventions may be required
for the large chondral defects or large HSLs, and these pathologies may be missed without preoperative planning.
for the large chondral defects or large HSLs, and these pathologies may be missed without preoperative planning.
Surgical Approach
A Bankart incision, or an instability-type incision of a deltopectoral approach is used to gain access to the anterior glenoid, which starts from the inferior tip of the coracoid process and extends down to the axillary fold (approximately 5-7 cm). After the deltopectoral interval is identified, the subfascial plane of the deltoid is mobilized. The cephalic vein is identified and retracted laterally. The lateral border of the conjoint tendon is identified, incised, and retracted medially. Incomplete release of adhesions surrounding the conjoint tendon may prevent nerve immobilization and increase the risk of musculocutaneous nerve damage during medial retraction (Figure 35-1). In addition, care is taken to avoid excessive medial retraction to protect the musculocutaneous nerve. Another retractor is placed underneath the deltoid muscle, which is retracted laterally.
The subscapularis (SSc) tendon is then carefully identified by releasing adhesions superiorly and inferiorly with Metzenbaum scissors. Medial adhesions are then cleared with a Cobb elevator. The authors prefer to use the SSc split approach. The SSc split is made using a 15-blade in line with the fibers of the SSc, between the upper two-thirds and lower one-third of SSc, or the ratio between 60% and 40% of the length of the lateral SSc footprint (Figure 35-2). The split should be made medially to the level of the musculotendinous junction and avoid over-medialization of the split because it increases the risk of iatrogenic nerve injury. In revision surgery cases, the authors prefer to convert SSc split into SSc tenotomy for better surgical exposure. A pointed retractor is placed within the SSc split to allow access to the capsule. An inverse L-capsulotomy is then performed using a 15-blade with the apex of the “L” superomedially (Figure 35-3). The medial limb of the capsulotomy is 1 cm in length and at the glenoid neck. The lateral limb of the capsulotomy should be extended laterally to the point where the fibers insert on the humeral head. A stay suture (#2 FiberWire) is placed in the superomedial corner of the capsule to help with capsular retraction and mobilization (Figure 35-4). The glenohumeral joint and glenoid are then fully exposed.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree









