Gottschalk Lionel J, Bois Aaron J, Shelby Marcus A, Miniaci Anthony, Jones Morgan H
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Jan 5;5(1):2325967116676269. doi: 10.1177/2325967116676269. eCollection 2017 Jan.
There is a strong correlation between glenoid defect size and recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A better understanding of glenoid defects could lead to improved treatments and outcomes.
To (1) determine the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size, (2) determine the consistency of glenoid defect size and location reported within the literature, (3) define the typical size and location of glenoid defects, and (4) determine whether a correlation exists between defect size and treatment outcome.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies measuring glenoid defect size or location. We excluded studies with defect size requirements or pathology other than anterior instability and studies that included patients with known prior surgery. Our search produced 83 studies; 38 studies provided numeric measurements for glenoid defect size and 2 for defect location.
From 1981 to 2000, a total of 5.6% (1 of 18) of the studies reported numeric measurements for glenoid defect size; from 2001 to 2014, the rate of reporting glenoid defects increased to 58.7% (37 of 63). Fourteen studies (n = 1363 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid width, and 9 studies (n = 570 shoulders) reported defect size ranges for percentage loss of glenoid surface area. According to 2 studies, the mean glenoid defect orientation was pointing toward the 3:01 and 3:20 positions on the glenoid clock face.
Since 2001, the rate of reporting numeric measurements for glenoid defect size was only 58.7%. Among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid width, 23.6% of shoulders had a defect between 10% and 25%, and among studies reporting the percentage loss of glenoid surface area, 44.7% of shoulders had a defect between 5% and 20%. There is significant variability in the way glenoid bone loss is measured, calculated, and reported.
肩胛盂缺损大小与复发性肩关节前脱位之间存在密切关联。更好地了解肩胛盂缺损有助于改善治疗方法及治疗效果。
(1)确定肩胛盂缺损大小数值测量的报告率;(2)确定文献中所报告的肩胛盂缺损大小及位置的一致性;(3)明确肩胛盂缺损的典型大小及位置;(4)确定缺损大小与治疗效果之间是否存在相关性。
系统评价;证据等级为4级。
检索PubMed、Ovid和Cochrane数据库,查找测量肩胛盂缺损大小或位置的临床研究。我们排除了有缺损大小要求或除前脱位外其他病理情况的研究,以及纳入有已知既往手术史患者的研究。我们的检索共得到83项研究;38项研究提供了肩胛盂缺损大小的数值测量,2项研究提供了缺损位置的数值测量。
从1981年至2000年,共有5.6%(18项中的1项)的研究报告了肩胛盂缺损大小的数值测量;从2001年至2014年,肩胛盂缺损的报告率增至58.7%(63项中的37项)。14项研究(n = 1363例肩关节)报告了肩胛盂宽度丢失百分比的缺损大小范围,9项研究(n = 570例肩关节)报告了肩胛盂表面积丢失百分比的缺损大小范围。根据2项研究,肩胛盂缺损的平均方向指向肩胛盂钟面上的3:01和3:20位置。
自2001年以来,肩胛盂缺损大小数值测量的报告率仅为58.7%。在报告肩胛盂宽度丢失百分比的研究中,23.6%的肩关节缺损在10%至25%之间;在报告肩胛盂表面积丢失百分比的研究中,44.7%的肩关节缺损在5%至20%之间。肩胛盂骨丢失的测量、计算和报告方式存在显著差异。