Purpose: Glenohumeral joint compatibility and bone morphology are among the most critical factors in shoulder stabilization. Our study investigated the effect of the bone morphological structure of the shoulder joint on anterior shoulder dislocation. Methods: In our study, people with a history of shoulder dislocation were selected as the patient group. In the control group, patients with shoulder MRIs for any reason and no history of shoulder dislocation were included. Those who have a fracture around the shoulder, a congenital deformity in the shoulder region, arthrosis of the shoulder, those whose MRI images cannot be measured, those with Hill-Sachs lesion, connective tissue diseases (such as Ehler Danlos), who are unsure of their diagnosis, or who have incomplete and incorrect suspicious information in their patient file have been excluded. In our retrospective case-control study, glenoid width, glenoid height, glenoid’s height-to-width ratio, glenoid’s depth, glenoid’s version, glenoid’s inclination, humerus radius of curvature, glenoid radius of curvature, and bony shoulder stability ratio were measured on MRI images of the patients. The sample size for each group was determined using a power analysis method. The intra-class coefficient (ICC) assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Results: A total of 80 patients, 40 each in the control and patient groups, were included in the study. Glenoid width was measured as 24.27 ± 1.58 in the patient group, 25.61 ± 1.72 in the control group; glenoid height was as measured 36.49 ± 2.26 in the patient group, 36.74 ± 1.99 in the control group; height-to-width ratio was measured as 1.5 ± 0.08 in the patient group, 1.43 ± 0.05 in the control group; glenoid version was as measured −0.53 ± 1.17 in the patient group, −1.44 ± 1.1 in the control group; glenoid inclination was measured as 1.44 ± 3.93 patient group, 2.64 ± 3.81 in the control group; glenoid depth was measured as 1.69 ± 0.41 in the patient group, 2.12 ± 0.53 in the control group; humerus radius of curvature was measured as 29.70 ± 6.76 in the patient group, 24.98 ± 3.22 in the control group; glenoid axial radius of curvature was measured as 61.8 ± 13.52 in the patient group, 52.53 ± 15.69 in the control group; glenoid coronal radius of curvature was measured as 43.01 ± 7.47 in the patient group, 37.74 ± 6.89 in the control group; the bony shoulder stability ratio was measured as 0.35 ± 0.06 in the patient group and 0.44 ± 0.06 in the control group. In the statistical evaluation, the glenoid width (p < 0.001), the glenoid height/width ratio (p < 0.001), the glenoid version (p < 0.001), the depth of the glenoid cavity (p < 0.001), and the radius of curvature measurements of the humeral head (p < 0.001) and the glenoid (axial, p < 0.007; coronal, p < 0.001) were found to be significantly different. Glenoid height and inclination were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The detection of bone morphological features that constitute risk factors for shoulder dislocations plays an important role in preventing shoulder dislocations. In this way, it provides essential data on personalized rehabilitation programs and treatment selection for recurrent dislocations.
Background: The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy of PRP, steroids, and autologous blood injection in patients with chronic lateral epicondylitis. Method: A total of 120 patients comprised our study. Three groups of 40 patients each received only one of the following: PRP, steroids, or autologous blood injections. Thereafter, VAS (visual analog scale), DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), and Nirschl scores of those treated were evaluated in the second week, the fourth week, the third month, and the sixth month. Results: The baseline evaluation revealed no significant change in VAS, DASH, and Nirschl scores among the three groups (p > 0.050). At the second week evaluation, patients treated with steroids showed significant improvement compared to patients treated with PRP and autologous blood (p < 0.001). The fourth-week evaluation revealed the VAS, DASH, and Nirschl scores of the patients treated with steroids to have improved more significantly than those of patients treated with PRP and autologous blood (p < 0.001). The third month, when the results of all three groups were compared, revealed similar results (p > 0.050). The sixth-month evaluation, when the results of all three groups were compared, revealed the autologous blood and PRP applications provided significantly better results than the group treated with steroids (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We concluded that steroid administration is effective in the short term, while PRP and autologous blood applications are more effective than steroid administration in the long term.
Background Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is a rare but increasing complication after vaccination. The aim of this study was to increase awareness of post-vaccination shoulder pain and to investigate the effect of the clinical condition of the shoulder before vaccination on the loss of function that may occur after vaccination. Methods This prospective study included 65 patients aged > 18 years who were diagnosed with unilateral shoulder impingement and/or bursitis. The first vaccination was performed on the shoulders with rotator cuff symptoms, then the second vaccination was performed on healthy shoulders of same patients as soon as the health system allowed. Pre-vaccination MRI of the symptomatic shoulders of the patients was performed and VAS, ASES and Constant scores were evaluated. At 2 weeks after vaccination of the symptomatic shoulder, scores were reassessed. For the patients with changes in the scores, MRI was performed again and the treatment of all patients was started. A second vaccination was given to asymptomatic shoulders and the patients were recalled two weeks later and their scores were evaluated. Results After vaccination, the symptomatic shoulder of 14 patients was affected. No clinical changes were observed in the asymptomatic shoulders after vaccination. The VAS scores of the symptomatic shoulders evaluated after vaccination were significantly higher than the scores evaluated before vaccination (p = 0.001). The ASES and Constant scores of symptomatic shoulders evaluated after vaccination were significantly decreased compared to the scores evaluated before vaccination (p = 0.001). Conclusions Exacerbation of symptoms may occur if symptomatic shoulders are vaccinated. Before vaccination, a detailed anamnesis should be taken from the patients and vaccination should be performed to the asymptomatic side.
Objectives While numerous geographic locations have been examined in the literature regarding the morphological characteristics of ankle bones, no studies have been conducted specifically in Turkey. Our study aims to assess the morphological features of ankle bones in individuals residing in Turkey, utilizing ankle computed tomography (CT) images obtained from patients. Material and methods In our single-centre study, the data between 2018 and 2022 were scanned. The criteria for inclusion in the study were determined as being a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, being over the age of 18, and being under the age of 65. Results 200 patients (100 men, 100 women) and 200 ankle CT images were selected by stratified sampling using the computer-assisted randomisation method. APA, APG, MalW, MDA, MDV, MTiTh, SRTa, SRTi, TaAL, TaW, TiAL, Th, and TiW values were measured on computed tomography images. Conclusions The morphological structure of the ankle bone varies from society to society and according to gender. These factors should be considered in implant design (especially in prosthetic design) and the application of these implants. Our study will guide the design of ankle implants (especially prostheses) for communities living in Turkey.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.