Search Filters

  • Media Source
  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Media Year
  • Language
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Contribution Of The Bony Bankart In Calculating Glenoid Bone Loss

Contribution Of The Bony Bankart In Calculating Glenoid Bone Loss

Isabella Bozzo, MDCM (c), M. Eng., CANADA Paul Kooner, MDCM, CANADA Ralph Nelson, MDCM, CANADA Yousef Marwan, FRCSC, MDCM, CANADA Carl Laverdière, MDCM, B. Eng., CANADA Samir Mustaffa Paruthikunnan, MBBS, MD, FRCR, M.Med (Diag. Radiology), UNITED KINGDOM Mathieu Boily, MD, FRCP(C), CANADA Paul André Martineau, MD, CANADA

McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, CANADA


2023 Congress   ePoster Presentation   2023 Congress   Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Diagnosis / Condition

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis Method


Summary: Accurately calculating the glenoid bone loss with the inclusion of the bony Bankart surface area, using our derived equation, can significantly reduce the total glenoid bone loss, favoring arthroscopic repair over open bony procedures.


Determining the magnitude of glenoid bone loss (BL) in patients with anterior shoulder instability is an important step in guiding management for shoulder surgeons. A large deficit of the glenoid width has been associated with poor outcomes after arthroscopic repair and is often an indication for a more extensive bony reconstruction. Therefore, a simple and accurate calculation of the degree of glenoid bone loss is crucial for determining the most successful treatment option.

The aim of this study was to derive a new equation to calculate glenoid bone loss with and without the bony Bankart fragment fixation. By assuming this bony fragment as a hemi-ellipse, we can consistently represent the surface area of the bony piece in the reduction and subtract it from the overall glenoid bone loss. 26 patients suspected to have clinically significant bone loss underwent CT imaging pre-operatively, selecting for severe cases of bone loss. Using PACS InteleViewer, the CT imaging was reviewed to measure the "true fit" circle glenoid area, the area of glenoid bone loss, the area of the bony Bankart, and the dimensions required for our equation.

Without the inclusion of the bony Bankart, the glenoid %BL by the standard “true fit” circle measured with imaging software found the glenoid %BL for all patients was 23.8% ± 9.7%. When including the bony Bankart, the glenoid %BL calculated with the software was found to be a mean of 12.1% ± 8.5%. The %BL calculated by our equation with the bony Bankart included was 10% ± 11.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the %BL values with our equation and the imaging software (p=0.46 > 0.05).

By assuming a cut-off glenoid %BL less than 13.5% for arthroscopic soft tissue repair instead of open repair, then 13 of the 26 patients, i.e. 50% of the patients in this study, would have been treated arthroscopically instead of with bony procedures. By assuming a cut-off of 25% as the threshold for bony procedure, 9 of the 26 patients would have been selected for arthroscopic repair by including the bony Bankart. While much debate exists over deciding on the most optimal treatment, the result of this study gives more reason for consideration of inclusion of the osseous bone fragment, if present.


More 2023 ISAKOS Congress Content