The Experts below are selected from a list of 255 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Vincenzo Denaro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Multidirectional Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review.
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the Internation, 2015Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Joel Locher, Stefan Buchmann, Nicola Maffulli, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose To analyze outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment options for multidirectional instability (MDI). Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords "shoulder," "multidirectional instability," "dislocation," "inferior instability," "capsulorrhaphy," "capsular plication," "capsular shift," "glenoid," "humeral Head," "Surgery," and "glenohumeral," over the years 1966 to 2014 was performed. Results Twenty-four articles describing patients with open capsular shift, arthroscopic treatment, and conservative or combined management in the setting of atraumatic MDI of the shoulder were included. A total of 861 shoulders in 790 patients was included. The median age was 24.3 years, ranging from 9 to 56 years. The dominant side was involved in 269 (58%) of 468 shoulders, whereas the nondominant side was involved in 199 (42%) shoulders. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 4.2 years (ranging from 9 months to 16 years). Fifty-two of 253 (21%) patients undergoing physiotherapy required surgical intervention for MDI management, whereas the overall occurrence of redislocation was seen in 61 of 608 (10%) shoulders undergoing surgical procedures. The redislocation event occurred in 17 of 226 (7.5%) shoulders with open capsular shift management, in 21 of 268 (7.8%) shoulders with arthroscopic plication management, in 12 of 49 (24.5%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic thermal shrinkage, and in 11 of 55 (22%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic laser-assisted capsulorrhaphy. Conclusions Arthroscopic capsular plication and open capsular shift are the best surgical procedures for treatment of MDI after failure of rehabilitative management. Arthroscopic capsular plication shows results comparable to open capsular shift. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
-
Bone loss in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability: a systematic review.
Knee surgery sports traumatology arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Giacomo Rizzello, Joel Locher, Nicola Maffulli, Giuseppe Salvatore, Pino Florio, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:The aim of this systematic review was to analyse outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability. A secondary aim was to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss should be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and Google Scholar databases was performed using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “posterior instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “reversed bony Bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “gleno-humeral”, “reversed Hill–Sachs”, over the years 1966–2014. Data were independently extracted by all the investigators: demographics, previous Surgery, imaging assessment, bone defect measurement, diagnosis, surgical management, return to sport, complications, and outcome measurements. The outcome parameters were recurrence of dislocation and clinical scores. Nineteen articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defects, humeral bony defects, or both in the setting of posterior gleno-humeral instability were included. A total of 328 shoulders in 321 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 33.4 years, ranging from 14 to 79 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 3.6 years (ranging from 8 months to 22 years). A redislocation event occurred in 32 (10 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 2 (10 %) of 20 shoulders with glenoid bony defect and in 12 (11 %) of 114 shoulders with humeral bony defect. Even though the general principle of treating recognized glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability is widely accepted, to date few studies in the literature accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bony procedures and the exact correlation between percentage of bone loss and higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. A limitation to the present systematic review is the small number of included patients, due to the rare entity of posterior bone defects/reversed Hill–Sachs. The clinical relevance is that the results of this systematic review can be helpful to guide clinicians in the management of patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability and glenoid and/or humeral bony defects. This manuscript also highlights the need for accurate description of results in further investigations. The main drawback of the available articles in the topic is that they rarely clarify the percentage of bone loss in patients undergoing a redislocation event. IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
Umile Giuseppe Longo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Multidirectional Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review.
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the Internation, 2015Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Joel Locher, Stefan Buchmann, Nicola Maffulli, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose To analyze outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment options for multidirectional instability (MDI). Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords "shoulder," "multidirectional instability," "dislocation," "inferior instability," "capsulorrhaphy," "capsular plication," "capsular shift," "glenoid," "humeral Head," "Surgery," and "glenohumeral," over the years 1966 to 2014 was performed. Results Twenty-four articles describing patients with open capsular shift, arthroscopic treatment, and conservative or combined management in the setting of atraumatic MDI of the shoulder were included. A total of 861 shoulders in 790 patients was included. The median age was 24.3 years, ranging from 9 to 56 years. The dominant side was involved in 269 (58%) of 468 shoulders, whereas the nondominant side was involved in 199 (42%) shoulders. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 4.2 years (ranging from 9 months to 16 years). Fifty-two of 253 (21%) patients undergoing physiotherapy required surgical intervention for MDI management, whereas the overall occurrence of redislocation was seen in 61 of 608 (10%) shoulders undergoing surgical procedures. The redislocation event occurred in 17 of 226 (7.5%) shoulders with open capsular shift management, in 21 of 268 (7.8%) shoulders with arthroscopic plication management, in 12 of 49 (24.5%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic thermal shrinkage, and in 11 of 55 (22%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic laser-assisted capsulorrhaphy. Conclusions Arthroscopic capsular plication and open capsular shift are the best surgical procedures for treatment of MDI after failure of rehabilitative management. Arthroscopic capsular plication shows results comparable to open capsular shift. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
-
Bone loss in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability: a systematic review.
Knee surgery sports traumatology arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Giacomo Rizzello, Joel Locher, Nicola Maffulli, Giuseppe Salvatore, Pino Florio, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:The aim of this systematic review was to analyse outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability. A secondary aim was to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss should be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and Google Scholar databases was performed using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “posterior instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “reversed bony Bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “gleno-humeral”, “reversed Hill–Sachs”, over the years 1966–2014. Data were independently extracted by all the investigators: demographics, previous Surgery, imaging assessment, bone defect measurement, diagnosis, surgical management, return to sport, complications, and outcome measurements. The outcome parameters were recurrence of dislocation and clinical scores. Nineteen articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defects, humeral bony defects, or both in the setting of posterior gleno-humeral instability were included. A total of 328 shoulders in 321 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 33.4 years, ranging from 14 to 79 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 3.6 years (ranging from 8 months to 22 years). A redislocation event occurred in 32 (10 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 2 (10 %) of 20 shoulders with glenoid bony defect and in 12 (11 %) of 114 shoulders with humeral bony defect. Even though the general principle of treating recognized glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability is widely accepted, to date few studies in the literature accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bony procedures and the exact correlation between percentage of bone loss and higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. A limitation to the present systematic review is the small number of included patients, due to the rare entity of posterior bone defects/reversed Hill–Sachs. The clinical relevance is that the results of this systematic review can be helpful to guide clinicians in the management of patients with posterior gleno-humeral instability and glenoid and/or humeral bony defects. This manuscript also highlights the need for accurate description of results in further investigations. The main drawback of the available articles in the topic is that they rarely clarify the percentage of bone loss in patients undergoing a redislocation event. IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
Mattia Loppini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Multidirectional Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review.
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the Internation, 2015Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Joel Locher, Stefan Buchmann, Nicola Maffulli, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose To analyze outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment options for multidirectional instability (MDI). Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords "shoulder," "multidirectional instability," "dislocation," "inferior instability," "capsulorrhaphy," "capsular plication," "capsular shift," "glenoid," "humeral Head," "Surgery," and "glenohumeral," over the years 1966 to 2014 was performed. Results Twenty-four articles describing patients with open capsular shift, arthroscopic treatment, and conservative or combined management in the setting of atraumatic MDI of the shoulder were included. A total of 861 shoulders in 790 patients was included. The median age was 24.3 years, ranging from 9 to 56 years. The dominant side was involved in 269 (58%) of 468 shoulders, whereas the nondominant side was involved in 199 (42%) shoulders. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 4.2 years (ranging from 9 months to 16 years). Fifty-two of 253 (21%) patients undergoing physiotherapy required surgical intervention for MDI management, whereas the overall occurrence of redislocation was seen in 61 of 608 (10%) shoulders undergoing surgical procedures. The redislocation event occurred in 17 of 226 (7.5%) shoulders with open capsular shift management, in 21 of 268 (7.8%) shoulders with arthroscopic plication management, in 12 of 49 (24.5%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic thermal shrinkage, and in 11 of 55 (22%) shoulders undergoing arthroscopic laser-assisted capsulorrhaphy. Conclusions Arthroscopic capsular plication and open capsular shift are the best surgical procedures for treatment of MDI after failure of rehabilitative management. Arthroscopic capsular plication shows results comparable to open capsular shift. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
Giovanni Romeo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
Polydoor Emile Huijsmans - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
-
Glenoid and humeral Head bone loss in traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy, 2014Co-Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mattia Loppini, Giacomo Rizzello, Giovanni Romeo, Polydoor Emile Huijsmans, Vincenzo DenaroAbstract:Purpose The aim of this systematic review is to analyze outcomes of surgical procedures for glenoid and/or humeral bony defects, performed singularly or in combination, in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. A secondary aim is to establish in clinical settings which percentage of glenoid or humeral bone loss needs to be treated with a bony procedure to avoid recurrence of dislocation. Methods A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords “shoulder”, “instability”, “dislocation”, “bone loss”, “bony bankart”, “osseous glenoid defects”, “glenoid bone grafting”, “Latarjet”, “glenoid”, “humeral Head”, “Surgery”, “glenohumeral”, “Hill Sachs”, “Remplissage”, over the years 1966–2012 was performed. Results Twenty-seven articles, describing patients with glenoid bony defect, humeral bony defect or both in the setting of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, were included. A total of 1,816 shoulders in 1,801 patients were included, with a median age at Surgery of 27.1 years, ranging from 12 to 75 years. Patients were assessed at a median follow-up period of 2.8 years (ranging from 6 months to 28.2 years). The overall recurrence of redislocation occurred in 117 (6.5 %) shoulders. The redislocation event occurred in 40 of 553 (7.2 %) shoulders with glenoid bony defect, in 30 of 225 (13.3 %) shoulders with humeral bony defect and in 63 of 1,009 (6.3 %) shoulders with both glenoid and humeral involvement. Conclusion Even though the general principle of recognizing and treating glenoid and humeral bone defects in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability is widely accepted, few studies are available to date to accurately establish which bone defects should be treated with bone procedures and the exact percentage of bone loss leading to higher risk of redislocation in clinical settings. Level of evidence IV.
