Accuracy of measurement of Hill-Sachs lesions with computed tomography

Kodali, Pradeep; Jones, Morgan H.; Polster, Josh; Miniaci, Anthony; Fening, Stephen D.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.030

Cited by 57 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these 24 articles, four correlated humeral head and glenoid anatomy [6,16,26,28]. Four articles examined imaging strategies used to quantified humeral head and glenoid bone loss [5,17,21,27]. Nine articles correlated humeral head and/or glenoid bone loss with shoulder engagement [2,9,10,13,14,24,[29][30][31].…”

Section: Search Strategy and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoulder Instability in the Setting of Bipolar (Glenoid and Humeral Head) Bone Loss: The Glenoid Track Concept

Trivedi

Pomerantz

Gross

et al. 2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The glenoid track uses both glenoid and humeral head bone loss to predict subsequent risk of humeral head engagement and possible dislocation. The glenoid track shows us that restoring the track to its natural width should be among the surgeon's first priority in restoring shoulder stability. Humeral head lesions, also known as Hill-Sachs lesions, are surgically addressed when they cause clinical symptoms. Symptoms arise when the medial margin of the defect engages the glenoid track.

show abstract

Section: Search Strategy and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoulder Instability in the Setting of Bipolar (Glenoid and Humeral Head) Bone Loss: The Glenoid Track Concept

Trivedi

Pomerantz

Gross

et al. 2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a radiographic study, Osaki et al [45] detected only 90 of 118 lesions using CT imaging. Assessment of width and depth of such lesions using 2D CT has had good results, but further studies need to be done to improve these measurements [46]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and treatment of failed shoulder instability procedures

Gowda

Wiater

2016

J Orthopaed Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of the unstable shoulder after a failed stabilization procedure can be difficult and challenging. Detailed understanding of the native shoulder anatomy, including its static and dynamic restraints, is necessary for determining the patient’s primary pathology. In addition, evaluation of the patient’s history, physical exam, and imaging is important for identifying the cause for failure after the initial procedure. Common mistakes include under-appreciation of bony defects, failure to recognize capsular laxity, technical errors, and missed associated pathology. Many potential treatment options exist for revision surgery, including open or arthroscopic Bankart repair, bony augmentation procedures, and management of Hill Sachs defects. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss in-depth the common risk factors for post-surgical failure, components for appropriate evaluation, and the different surgical options available for revision stabilization.Level of evidence Level V.

show abstract

“…55 The width, depth, and length of HillSachs lesions can be accurately assessed, although underestimation of their size is common. 34 For glenoid imaging, 3D CT permits digital subtraction of the humeral head component of the glenohumeral joint, allowing precise visualization of the glenoid face and vault (to evaluate hypoplasia and retroversion in cases of posterior instability) in addition to comprehensive analysis of the scapula. 37 Measurement of glenoid bone loss can be achieved by a number of techniques that assess either the percentage loss of surface area or width.…”

Section: Computed Tomographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the only case series examining the role of fusion surgery in epileptic patients with recurrent shoulder instability, Thangarajah et al 66 reported the outcome of 6 patients followed up for a mean of 39 months (range, 12-79). Mean age of the cohort was 31 years (range, [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], and the indication for surgery was severe pain and dysfunction of the shoulder associated with bone loss (on glenoid, humeral, or both sides) of sufficient magnitude to preclude safe fixed-fulcrum shoulder arthroplasty or further bone or soft tissue reconstruction. One revision was undertaken for loosening of the hardware, but there was an overall improvement in functional outcome, no residual cases of instability, and no routine removal of the hardware.…”

Section: Arthrodesismentioning

confidence: 99%