Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A..
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):389-395. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.07.037. Epub 2017 Sep 19.
The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of glenoid perforation during SLAP repair for suture anchors placed through an anterolateral portal versus a posterolateral portal of Wilmington.
Ten bilateral cadaveric shoulders were randomized to suture anchor placement through an anterolateral portal on one shoulder and a posterolateral portal on the contralateral shoulder. Anchors were placed into anterior, posterior, and far posterior positions on the glenoid rim (1 o'clock, 11 o'clock, and 10 o'clock positions for right shoulders). The shoulder was then dissected, and the distance from the suture anchor tip to the nerve was measured if perforation occurred. The maximum load and failure mechanism of each anchor was assessed with a materials testing system machine.
Only 2 of 20 anchors placed in the posterosuperior glenoid through the posterolateral portal perforated compared with 16 of 20 of the anchors placed through the anterolateral portal (P < .05). The mean distance from the perforated anchor tip to the suprascapular nerve was 2.5 ± 1.4 mm for the anterolateral portal and 4.4 ± 0.6 mm for the posterolateral portal (P = .18). We did not observe a significant difference in biomechanical strength (P > .05).
There is a high rate of glenoid perforation in close proximity to the suprascapular nerve when placing anchors in the posterosuperior glenoid through an anterolateral portal. Use of the posterolateral portal results in a much lower incidence of glenoid perforation for anchors placed in the posterosuperior glenoid, but there is a higher risk of glenoid perforation for an anchor placed in the anterosuperior glenoid from the posterolateral portal.
There is a higher risk of injury to the suprascapular nerve when suture anchors are placed in the posterosuperior glenoid through an anterolateral portal compared with a posterolateral portal for SLAP repair.
本研究旨在比较通过威明顿前外侧入路与后外侧入路放置 SLAP 修复缝线锚钉时,发生肩盂骨穿孔的风险。
10 具双侧尸体肩关节随机分为一侧肩关节前外侧入路和对侧肩关节后外侧入路缝线锚钉放置。将锚钉分别放置在肩盂前缘(右侧为 1 点、11 点和 10 点位置)、后缘和远后缘。然后解剖肩关节,如果发生穿孔,测量缝线锚钉尖端到神经的距离。用材料测试系统机评估每个锚钉的最大负荷和失效机制。
仅 20 个通过后外侧入路放置在后上肩盂的锚钉中有 2 个(10%)穿孔,而 20 个通过前外侧入路放置的锚钉中有 16 个(80%)穿孔(P <.05)。前外侧入路穿孔锚钉尖端到肩胛上神经的平均距离为 2.5 ± 1.4 mm,后外侧入路为 4.4 ± 0.6 mm(P =.18)。我们没有观察到生物力学强度的显著差异(P >.05)。
通过前外侧入路在肩盂后上缘放置锚钉时,非常靠近肩胛上神经,有很高的肩盂穿孔率。通过后外侧入路放置锚钉时,后上肩盂的穿孔率明显降低,但从后外侧入路在前上肩盂放置锚钉时,肩盂穿孔的风险更高。
与通过后外侧入路相比,通过前外侧入路在肩盂后上缘放置缝线锚钉时,损伤肩胛上神经的风险更高。