Even though shoulder instability has been extensively studied, therapeutic approaches for certain patient subgroups remain a matter of ongoing debate. This is mainly due to the existing controversy on how to address individual patient-related risk factors, including the variability in soft tissue properties and bony anatomy, to prevent recurrence of instability.
In general, high-level evidence suggests that young, physically active patients should undergo surgical stabilization after first-time traumatic anterior dislocation, due to the alarmingly high rate of recurrence [10]. Repair of the anteroinferior capsulolabral complex is usually performed arthroscopically using a minimum of three suture anchors, ensuring an anatomic soft tissue restoration, sufficient biomechanical stability, and satisfactory functional outcomes [1, 5, 12]. Recently, the importance of adequate placement of the most inferior anchor at the 5:30 o’clock position and the height of the created glenoid labral “bumper” at this specific position has been highlighted for reducing the rate of recurrent instability and maximizing postoperative success [13]. It is also worth mentioning that a “diffusely small” labrum, defined as a labral height of less than the width of the glenoid tidemark cartilage, has been shown to be associated with the occurrence of postoperative re-instability [21]. Consequently, detailed assessment of labral and capsular morphology is critical pre- and intraoperatively, as patients with a small labrum and/or a large capsular volume will most likely benefit from performing an additional capsular shift. Accordingly, shoulder surgeons should also be aware of the re-stretching trait of the capsule along with a re-increase of capsular volume even after successful surgical interventions, potentially leading to recurrent instability [18].
Interestingly, increased capsular volume rather than ligamentous laxity per se has also been suggested to be the critical morphological feature of shoulder hyperlaxity, observed in approximately 13% of patients with first-time dislocations [7, 11]. Treatment of patients presenting with antero-inferior instability and concomitant hyperlaxity remains a major challenge, due to hyperlaxity being an independent risk factor for recurrent instability and a predictor for failure following arthroscopic Bankart repair [3, 17]. As previous studies demonstrated a reduction of capsular volume by 57% in the setting of combined anteroinferior and posteroinferior capsular plication [23], an additional suture anchor should be placed posteroinferiorly at the 7 o’clock position to create a superomedial capsular shift. Biomechanically, performing the plication stitch in an inferior-to-superior direction preserved rotational range of motion more sufficiently when compared to a medial-to-lateral direction [2].
Despite advances in surgical techniques and instrumentation, arthroscopic capsulolabral repair should not be considered the panacea for all patients suffering from shoulder instability. Especially bone loss at the anterior rim of the glenoid has been identified as the number one cause for failure following soft tissue-based shoulder stabilization. Historically, 20% to 25% has been deemed the “critical” cut-off value where glenoid bone loss should be surgically addressed using a bone augmentation procedure [8, 20]. Once again, the debate regarding a redefinition on what constitutes the correct threshold value has flared up, as a “subcritical” bone loss of 13.5% was found to significantly impair functional outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair, questioning if these patients would have benefitted from bone grafting [20]. The term “subcritical” implies that a bone loss of 13.5% is associated with clinically relevant worsening of functional outcomes. In contrast to the presence of “critical” bone loss, however, an increased rate of postoperative recurrent instability is not observed.
Unsurprisingly, there is not only a lack in consensus on the “critical” threshold value of glenoid bone loss, but also on which of the various bone augmentation techniques should be considered the optimal choice for these patients. Numerous techniques are currently in clinical use, including transfer of the coracoid, use of a tricortical iliac crest or scapular spine autograft, and fresh cadaveric allografts [8]. When conducting a hypothetical survey, our French neighbours would most likely advocate that each of these patients should undergo the Latarjet procedure. Undoubtedly, the Latarjet procedure—either performed open or arthroscopically—has been proven to consistently achieve sufficient functional outcomes along with low rates of recurrence [8, 24]. However, especially when performed open, the risk for neurovascular injuries as well as concerns regarding the development of glenohumeral osteoarthritis and the technically more demanding surgery in the revision setting clearly challenge the indication of a primary Latarjet procedure in cases with negligible glenoid bone loss [9]. In addition, the amount of coracoid graft osteolysis has been shown to be disturbingly high in patients with a glenoid bone loss of less than 15%, probably due to the insufficient mechanotransduction effect between humeral head and bone graft [6].
When assessing bone loss at the humeral head—better known as the Hill Sachs lesion—everyone should be familiar with the “glenoid track” concept, highlighting the importance of position and orientation of the lesion [25]. In the setting of isolated humeral bone loss, “off-track” Hill Sachs lesions, which are at risk for engaging with the glenoid and causing recurrent instability, are most frequently treated using a remplissage procedure, where the infraspinatus and posterior capsule is transferred into the defect [8]. Biomechanically, the infraspinatus tenodesis may prevent the humeral head from anterior translation, subluxation, and engagement with the glenoid [4]. However, in cases of bipolar bone loss, lengthening the glenoid arc with a bone block procedure may be preferred, effectively converting the Hill Sachs lesion from “off-track” to “on-track” without the need for an additional remplissage [15, 19].
Recently, a rethinking process involving the impact of glenoid concavity has been initiated, challenging the current concept of determining a general threshold value for critical glenoid bone loss as a criterion for the use of a bone augmentation procedure in shoulder instability [16, 22]. Ironically, previous work already demonstrated that the concave shape of the articular surface of the glenoid should be considered the crucial component for determining glenohumeral stability, which is based on the synergism with the rotator cuff via the “concavity compression” principle [14, 26]. However, the effect of glenoid concavity and its relationship to bone loss has been brought to the fore more than ever, as the same extent of glenoid bone loss in an increasingly concave-shaped glenoid was found to result in a greater decline in stability when compared to a flatter glenoid [16]. Consistently, a cadaveric study observed that the loss of stability with increasing defect size was dependent on initial concavity [22].
Consequently, simply measuring the extent of glenoid bone loss may not provide the precise answers we thirst for regarding its true biomechanical effect, as the inter-individual, biomechanically relevant differences in glenoid concavity may skew the truth. However, it remains to be seen whether the consideration of glenoid concavity will substantially influence treatment algorithms in the future and pave the way for an even more individual surgical approach.
References
Aboalata M, Plath JE, Seppel G, Juretzko J, Vogt S, Imhoff AB (2017) Results of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior-Inferior Shoulder Instability at 13-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med 45:782–787
Ahmad CS, Wang VM, Sugalski MT, Levine WN, Bigliani LU (2005) Biomechanics of shoulder capsulorrhaphy procedures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:12s–18s
Boileau P, Villalba M, Héry JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L (2006) Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88:1755–1763
Buza JA 3rd, Iyengar JJ, Anakwenze OA, Ahmad CS, Levine WN (2014) Arthroscopic Hill-Sachs remplissage: a systematic review. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96:549–555
Dekker TJ, Aman ZS, Peebles LA, Storaci HW, Chahla J, Millett PJ et al (2020) Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the glenohumeral ligaments: an anatomic study. Am J Sports Med 48:1837–1845
Di Giacomo G, de Gasperis N, Costantini A, De Vita A, Beccaglia MA, Pouliart N (2014) Does the presence of glenoid bone loss influence coracoid bone graft osteolysis after the Latarjet procedure? A computed tomography scan study in 2 groups of patients with and without glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:514–518
Eberbach H, Jaeger M, Bode L, Izadpanah K, Hupperich A, Ogon P et al (2021) Arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift restores physiological capsular volume in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:230–239
Friedman LGM, Lafosse L, Garrigues GE (2020) Global perspectives on management of shoulder instability: decision making and treatment. Orthop Clin North Am 51:241–258
Gilat R, Haunschild ED, Lavoie-Gagne OZ, Tauro TM, Knapik DM, Fu MC et al (2021) Outcomes of the Latarjet procedure versus free bone block procedures for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 49:805–816
Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A (2004) Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004325.pub2Cd004325
Kraeutler MJ, McCarty EC, Belk JW, Wolf BR, Hettrich CM, Ortiz SF et al (2018) Descriptive epidemiology of the MOON shoulder instability cohort. Am J Sports Med 46:1064–1069
Lacheta L, Brady A, Rosenberg SI, Dornan GJ, Dekker TJ, Anderson N et al (2020) Biomechanical evaluation of knotless and knotted all-suture anchor repair constructs in 4 Bankart repair configurations. Arthroscopy 36:1523–1532
Lee SJ, Kim JH, Gwak HC, Kim CW, Lee CR, Jung SH et al (2020) Influence of glenoid labral bumper height and capsular volume on clinical outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair as assessed with serial CT arthrogram: can anterior-inferior volume fraction be a prognostic factor? Am J Sports Med 48:1846–1856
Lippitt SB, Vanderhooft JE, Harris SL, Sidles JA, Harryman DT 2nd, Matsen FA 3rd (1993) Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: a quantitative analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2:27–35
Locher J, Longo UG, Pirato F, Susdorf R, Henninger HB, Suter T (2021) Open anatomical glenoid reconstruction with an iliac crest bone autograft effectively resolves off-track Hill-Sachs lesions to on-track lesions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04016-6
Moroder P, Damm P, Wierer G, Böhm E, Minkus M, Plachel F et al (2019) Challenging the current concept of critical glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability: does the size measurement really tell it all? Am J Sports Med 47:688–694
Olds M, Ellis R, Donaldson K, Parmar P, Kersten P (2015) Risk factors which predispose first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations to recurrent instability in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 49:913–922
Park JY, Chung SW, Kumar G, Oh KS, Choi JH, Lee D et al (2015) Factors affecting capsular volume changes and association with outcomes after Bankart repair and capsular shift. Am J Sports Med 43:428–438
Plath JE, Henderson DJH, Coquay J, Dück K, Haeni D, Lafosse L (2018) Does the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure effectively correct “Off-Track” Hill-Sachs Lesions? Am J Sports Med 46:72–78
Shaha JS, Cook JB, Song DJ, Rowles DJ, Bottoni CR, Shaha SH et al (2015) Redefining “Critical” bone loss in shoulder instability: functional outcomes worsen with “Subcritical” bone loss. Am J Sports Med 43:1719–1725
Vaswani R, Gasbarro G, Como C, Golan E, Fourman M, Wilmot A et al (2020) Labral morphology and number of preoperative dislocations are associated with recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Arthroscopy 36:993–999
Wermers J, Schliemann B, Raschke MJ, Michel PA, Heilmann LF, Dyrna F et al (2021) Glenoid concavity has a higher impact on shoulder stability than the size of a bony defect. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:2631–2639
Wiater JM, Vibert BT (2007) Glenohumeral joint volume reduction with progressive release and shifting of the inferior shoulder capsule. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:810–814
Wong SE, Friedman LGM, Garrigues GE (2020) Arthroscopic Latarjet: indications, techniques, and results. Arthroscopy 36:2044–2046
Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Abe H, Minagawa H, Seki N, Shimada Y et al (2007) Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: a new concept of glenoid track. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:649–656
Yamamoto N, Muraki T, Sperling JW, Steinmann SP, Cofield RH, Itoi E et al (2010) Stabilizing mechanism in bone-grafting of a large glenoid defect. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92:2059–2066
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Imhoff AB is a paid consultant for Arthrex Inc. (Naples, FL), Arthrosurface (Franklin, MA), and medi GmbH (Bayreuth, Germany). Muench LN declares no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Muench, L.N., Imhoff, A.B. The unstable shoulder: what soft tissue, bony anatomy and biomechanics can teach us. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 3899–3901 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06743-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06743-0