Anterior Instability: Open Distal Tibial Allograft



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.







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): image. (6) Use c to determine the area of the bone loss (B): image (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

A 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: image.

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


Feb 1, 2026 | Posted by in EMERGENCY MEDICINE | Comments Off on Anterior Instability: Open Distal Tibial Allograft

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access