Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byHarold Curtis Modified over 9 years ago
1
GIORGOS - GRIGORIS KARACHALIOS Orthopaedic Surgeon Director of Arthroscopic Surgery Dpt Director of Arthroscopic Surgery Dpt Iatriko Kentro Athinon P.Falirou P. Faliro, Athinai, Hellas. P. Faliro, Athinai, Hellas. GLENOID FRACTURES : ARTHROSCOPIC TREATMENT
2
Confusing literature Complex anatomy and function. Complex anatomy and function. There is no generally accepted classification ( Euler & Ruedi, Goss, Ideberg, Thompson, Zdravkovic & Damholt ). There is no generally accepted classification ( Euler & Ruedi, Goss, Ideberg, Thompson, Zdravkovic & Damholt ). The decision on treatment is mainly based on personal experience, since these are rare. The decision on treatment is mainly based on personal experience, since these are rare. Very often indicators of major trauma – the # is often neglected Very often indicators of major trauma – the # is often neglected
3
Epidemiology 5% of all fractures to the shoulder girdle 5% of all fractures to the shoulder girdle 3% of all injuries to the shoulder girdle 3% of all injuries to the shoulder girdle 0.4 – 1% of all fractures 0.4 – 1% of all fractures Mean age 35 - 45 years
4
One per 3000 operated fractures ~ 10% of glenoid fractures internal fixation
5
Scapular fractures classification Intra-articular - extra-articular Intra-articular - extra-articular Body and spine 50% glenoid neck 25% glenoid cavity 10% acromion 7% coracoid 7% Body and spine 50% glenoid neck 25% glenoid cavity 10% acromion 7% coracoid 7%
6
intra-articular Ideberg intra-articular Ideberg
7
Glenoid fossa Goss
8
Types II through V : closed reduction under anaesthesia ALWAYS unsuccessful. Late improvement. 75% good results by early mobilization. European literature more aggressive Types II through V : closed reduction under anaesthesia ALWAYS unsuccessful. Late improvement. 75% good results by early mobilization. European literature more aggressive
9
Type I to be distinguished from 1. Bony Bankart lesion 1. Bony Bankart lesion 2. Type II joint surface < glenoid neck 2. Type II joint surface < glenoid neck
10
Mechanism of dislocation Mechanism of dislocation sometimes redislocation after reduction sometimes redislocation after reduction
11
risk : Instability ( late dislocation or subluxation ) Joint degeneration
12
TREATMENT ? TREATMENT ? TARGET retain congruity of the articular surface TARGET retain congruity of the articular surface stability of the joint stability of the joint
13
indications for internal fixation indications for internal fixation displacement > 10 mm. & fragment > ¼ of the glenoid displacement > 10 mm. & fragment > ¼ of the glenoid internal fixation ( De Palma ) internal fixation ( De Palma ) fragment > ¼ of the glenoid & instability internal fixation ( Rockwood ) fragment > ¼ of the glenoid & instability internal fixation ( Rockwood )
14
indications for internal fixation indications for internal fixation Type I fracture ( Ideberg ) > 21% of the length of the glenoid ( av. 26,2 % in his pts ) One fragment Step > 2 mm No neurological deficit Fragment ‘s size 27 % Sugaya 2005 Tauber 2008
15
indications for internal fixation indications for internal fixation ( A x 96,5% - B ) / A x 100 fragment > 21% of the length of the glenoid ( av. width 6.8 mm ) fragment > 21% of the length of the glenoid ( av. width 6.8 mm ) resecting a fragment > 6,8 mm and refixing the capsular-ligamentous complex to the glenoid defect, creates instability and reduces the ext. rotation Itoi 2000 resecting a fragment > 6,8 mm and refixing the capsular-ligamentous complex to the glenoid defect, creates instability and reduces the ext. rotation Itoi 2000 21%
16
open reduction and internal fixation open reduction and internal fixation failure 10 % failure 10 % complications 10% Schandelmaier 2002 complications 10% Schandelmaier 2002 good- excellent functional outcome 82 % good- excellent functional outcome 82 % anatomic reduction 89 % Mayo 1998 anatomic reduction 89 % Mayo 1998 implant impingement - loosening implant impingement - loosening neural injury infection stiffness neural injury infection stiffness
17
potential advantages of arthroscopic fixation Initial diagnostic arthroscopy to exclude / assess associated injuries Reduced soft tissue damage ( particulary of the subscapularis tendon) Overall lower postop morbidity
18
the arthroscopic assessment, offers : > of C - arm > of C - arm Confirmation of the reduction … … and the stability of the joint
19
Attempts of arthroscopic fixation using : Suture anchors Percutaneous wire fixation Screw fixation
20
Sugaya 2005
21
Bauer 2006
25
assesment 1 2 3 Assesement of the injury and mobility of the fragment
26
4 5 6 7 mobilizationdebridement
27
8 9 10 11 reduction Temporary fixation by k-wire
28
average glenoid length : 35 mm average glenoid width : 25 mm average glenoid length : 35 mm average glenoid width : 25 mm ACUTRAK – ACUMED tapered cannulated cannulated HEADLESS HEADLESS self-taping self-taping usually length of 25 – 30 mm is adequate usually length of 25 – 30 mm is adequate length – instrumentation ??? Arthroscopic use
29
12 13 drilling Screw placement
33
Assesement of the injury and mobility of the fragment
34
reduction
35
insertion of two screws – at the proximal and distal edges of the fractures -
36
Suture passing around the bony element of the fragment and reduction - temporary fixation by a guide K-wire, before the knot tying
37
Knot tying
38
Self – tapping Threaded head Longer pitch of the distal threads Smooth proximal section 10/10 k-wire Barouk screw DePuy
39
Drilling screw placement
40
Check of reduction Check of screw impingement posterior portal anterior portal
44
displacement
45
meticulus mobilization
46
bioabsorbable “ anchor “ transosseous suture
47
screw ( Barouk – DePuy ) check
48
Male, 47, r shoulder
53
What was the problem ? Probably the orientation of the fragment : upper edge bellow 3 ‘ clock Longer distance Higher risk Difficult reduction
54
Ευχαριστώ και καλή σας ημέρα Thank you and … have a nice day
55
Male, 44 left side, nondom. Attempt to hold heavy item, ? dislocation Pain, movement restriction
57
Male, 44, right side – dom. Dislocation. Closed reduction. Pain, restriction of movements. Male, 44, right side – dom. Dislocation. Closed reduction. Pain, restriction of movements.
59
14 ΤΕΛΙΚΟΣ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΣ
60
Type II Transverse or oblique # Transverse or oblique # Inf glenoid : free fragment Inf glenoid : free fragment Humeral head : sublux inferiorly Humeral head : sublux inferiorly ORIF ORIF
61
Type III Upper third of the glenoid and coracoid Upper third of the glenoid and coracoid Assoc. injuries : acromion #, clavicle #, acromioclavicular separation. Assoc. injuries : acromion #, clavicle #, acromioclavicular separation. ORIF : > 5 mm step- off, two incisions. ORIF : > 5 mm step- off, two incisions.
62
Type IV Horizontal # “ all the way “ to the vertebral border. Horizontal # “ all the way “ to the vertebral border. ORIF : separated or displaced # ORIF : separated or displaced #
63
Type V Combinaton of type II – IV Combinaton of type II – IV ORIF, more conservative if h.h. is well centered. ORIF, more conservative if h.h. is well centered.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.