TY - JOUR
T1 - Distal Clavicle Autograft Versus Traditional and Congruent Arc Latarjet Procedures
T2 - A Comparison of Surface Area and Glenoid Apposition With 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography and 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
AU - Kim, Billy I.
AU - Hudson, Caroline P.
AU - Taylor, Dean C.
AU - Anakwenze, Oke
AU - Dickens, Jonathan F.
AU - Lau, Brian C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - Background: Limited studies have compared graft-glenoid apposition and glenoid augmentation area between the Latarjet procedure and distal clavicle graft in glenohumeral stabilization. Additionally, preoperative planning is typically performed using computed tomography (CT), and few studies have used 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reformations to assess graft dimensions. Purpose: The purpose of this study was 2-fold: (1) to compare bony apposition, glenoid augmentation, and graft width among coracoid and distal clavicle bony augmentation techniques and (2) to determine the viability of 3D MRI to assess bone graft dimensions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 24 patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability and bone loss were included in this study. 3D CT and 3D MRI reformations were utilized to measure pertinent dimensions for 5 orientations of coracoid and distal clavicle autografts: (1) standard Latarjet procedure (SLJ), (2) congruent arc Latarjet procedure (CLJ), (3) distal clavicle attached by its posterior surface (DCP), (4) distal clavicle attached by its inferior surface (DCI), and (5) distal clavicle attached by its resected end (DCR). Glenoid augmentation was defined as the graft surface area contributing to the glenoid. Bone-on-bone apposition was defined as the graft-glenoid contact area for bone healing potential, and graft width was pertinent for fixation technique. Glenoid bone loss ranged from 0% to 34%. Paired t tests were used to compare graft sizes between patients and compare 3D CT versus 3D MRI measurements. Results: The CLJ had the largest graft surface area (mean, 318.41 ± 74.44 mm2), while the SLJ displayed the most bone-on-bone apposition (mean, 318.41 ± 74.44 mm2). The DCI had the largest graft width (mean, 20.62 ± 3.93 mm). Paired t tests revealed no significant differences between the Latarjet techniques, whereas distal clavicle grafts varied significantly with orientation. All 3D CT and 3D MRI measurements were within 1 mm of each other, and only 2 demonstrated a statistically significant difference (coracoid width: 13.03 vs 13.98 mm, respectively [P =.010]; distal clavicle thickness: 9.69 vs 10.77 mm, respectively [P =.002]). 3D CT and 3D MRI measurements demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r > 0.6 and P <.001 for all dimensions). Conclusion: Glenoid augmentation, bony apposition, and graft width varied with coracoid or distal clavicle graft type and orientation. Differences between 3D CT and 3D MRI were small and likely not clinically significant. Clinical Relevance: 3D MRI is a viable method for preoperative planning and graft selection in glenoid bone loss.
AB - Background: Limited studies have compared graft-glenoid apposition and glenoid augmentation area between the Latarjet procedure and distal clavicle graft in glenohumeral stabilization. Additionally, preoperative planning is typically performed using computed tomography (CT), and few studies have used 3-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reformations to assess graft dimensions. Purpose: The purpose of this study was 2-fold: (1) to compare bony apposition, glenoid augmentation, and graft width among coracoid and distal clavicle bony augmentation techniques and (2) to determine the viability of 3D MRI to assess bone graft dimensions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 24 patients with recurrent glenohumeral instability and bone loss were included in this study. 3D CT and 3D MRI reformations were utilized to measure pertinent dimensions for 5 orientations of coracoid and distal clavicle autografts: (1) standard Latarjet procedure (SLJ), (2) congruent arc Latarjet procedure (CLJ), (3) distal clavicle attached by its posterior surface (DCP), (4) distal clavicle attached by its inferior surface (DCI), and (5) distal clavicle attached by its resected end (DCR). Glenoid augmentation was defined as the graft surface area contributing to the glenoid. Bone-on-bone apposition was defined as the graft-glenoid contact area for bone healing potential, and graft width was pertinent for fixation technique. Glenoid bone loss ranged from 0% to 34%. Paired t tests were used to compare graft sizes between patients and compare 3D CT versus 3D MRI measurements. Results: The CLJ had the largest graft surface area (mean, 318.41 ± 74.44 mm2), while the SLJ displayed the most bone-on-bone apposition (mean, 318.41 ± 74.44 mm2). The DCI had the largest graft width (mean, 20.62 ± 3.93 mm). Paired t tests revealed no significant differences between the Latarjet techniques, whereas distal clavicle grafts varied significantly with orientation. All 3D CT and 3D MRI measurements were within 1 mm of each other, and only 2 demonstrated a statistically significant difference (coracoid width: 13.03 vs 13.98 mm, respectively [P =.010]; distal clavicle thickness: 9.69 vs 10.77 mm, respectively [P =.002]). 3D CT and 3D MRI measurements demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r > 0.6 and P <.001 for all dimensions). Conclusion: Glenoid augmentation, bony apposition, and graft width varied with coracoid or distal clavicle graft type and orientation. Differences between 3D CT and 3D MRI were small and likely not clinically significant. Clinical Relevance: 3D MRI is a viable method for preoperative planning and graft selection in glenoid bone loss.
KW - 3D CT
KW - 3D MRI
KW - Latarjet
KW - autograft
KW - distal clavicle
KW - shoulder instability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150226843&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/03635465231157430
DO - 10.1177/03635465231157430
M3 - Article
C2 - 36927084
AN - SCOPUS:85150226843
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 51
SP - 1295
EP - 1302
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 5
ER -