Acromial approach for treating glenoid fractures: A report of two cases and a literature review

Ao, Rongguang; Yu, Baoqing; Shi, Jifei; Li, Zigang; Zhu, Yalong

doi:10.3892/etm.2015.2717

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of open surgical approach for glenoid fracture, including the anterior deltopectoral approach [16][17][18], superior approach through the rotator cuff interval or acromial approach [19], or Judet approach, is influenced by the fracture pattern. However, extensive soft tissue dissection, impaired blood supply to the fragments, and postoperative muscle weakness, scar tissue adhesion, or stiffness remain major concerns with these open approaches [20][21][22][23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Glenoid Fracture with Scapular Involvement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Lin

Chang

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We investigated the superiority of arthroscopy-assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for treating glenoid fracture with scapular involvement. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with glenoid fracture who underwent ARIF or ORIF from 2010–2020. Radiographic outcomes were assessed, and clinical outcomes (active range of motion [ROM], visual analog scale [VAS], Constant, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH]) were evaluated 12 months postoperatively. Results: Forty-four patients with Ideberg type II–VI glenoid fractures (ARIF: 20; ORIF: 24; follow-up 12–22 months) were included. Union was achieved in all patients. Active ROM values were comparable between the approaches. Constant and DASH scores were non-significantly better with ARIF (90.9 ± 9.2 vs. 86.6 ± 18.1 [p = 0.341] and 6.8 ± 9.4 vs. 9.3 ± 21.3 [p = 0.626], respectively). However, VAS scores were significantly lower with ARIF (1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 1.4, p = 0.001). Associated intra-articular lesions (articular depressions [80%], superior labral anterior-posterior tear [20%], labral tears [30%]) were found in most ARIF cases and were repaired during ARIF. Conclusions: For glenoid fracture with scapular involvement, ARIF allows accurate diagnosis of fracture pattern and the management of associated intra-articular lesions, with better pain control outcomes than ORIF. Thus, arthroscopy-assistant surgery should be considered in patient with glenoid fracture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Glenoid Fracture with Scapular Involvement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Lin

Chang

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is particularly important to choose an appropriate surgical approach because of the complexity of Ideberg III glenoid fractures. Currently, there are several known surgical approaches as follows: anterior approach [ 5 , 8 , 9 ], posterior approach (traditional Judet approach and modified Judet approach) [ [10] , [11] , [12] ], combined approach [ 13 ] and acromion approach [ 14 ]. A posterior superior approach, posterior vertical approach and posterior minimally invasive approach [ 15 ] mentioned by a few literatures, actually, all should belong to the category of modified Judet approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Superior approach for treating Ideberg III glenoid fractures with superior shoulder suspensory complex injury: A technical trick

Zheng¹,

Shen³

et al. 2020

Trauma Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideberg III glenoid fractures are rare and difficult in treating among shoulder fractures. With the development of research, a series of surgical approaches and methods were performed, such as anterior approach, traditional Judet approach, modified Judet approach, combined approach, acromion approach and so on. While these approaches still have some limitations in treatment of Ideberg III glenoid fractures with superior shoulder suspensory complex(SSSC) injury, for extensive soft tissue dissection, unsatisfactory exposure, difficult surgical intervention. In our case with Ideberg III glenoid fracture with acromioclavicular dislocation, superior approach was adopted during treatment of the scapula glenoid fracture and coracoclavicular ligament rupture perfectly. The result was satisfactory in accordance with 92 points by Constant-Murley score. We believe that individualized therapy should depend on the injury types, and superior approach would be a new valuable method for Ideberg III glenoid fractures with SSSC injury.

show abstract

“…The fracture line extends from the glenoid fossa to the superior margin of the scapula. Some authors argue that this type of fracture results from a force applied to the humeral head that is directed somewhat superiorly [ [2] , [3] , [4] ]. However, the body of the scapula is just suspended by the clavicle; it is not fixed directly to the thoracic bones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideberg type III fractures are sometimes associated with SSSC injury [ 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 ]. Most authors recommend surgical treatment for concomitant injuries of the posterior segment (i.e., acromion fracture, acromioclavicular dislocations, or fractures of the distal clavicle) [ 4 , 9 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideberg type III glenoid fractures are caused by indirect force: A report of four cases

Matsugaki

Shibata

Matsubara

2020

Trauma Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideberg type III glenoid fractures are relatively rare, and the mechanisms of injury and treatment strategies remain controversial. We reviewed the fracture patterns and final radiological findings in four cases. All fractures were wider on the medial side than on the side of the articular surface. All patients had multiple ipsilateral rib fractures; three out of four patients had a concomitant acromion fracture. Therefore, the mechanism of injury for the fracture is assumed to be external force applied in the caudal direction to the medial side of the body of the scapula. The superior shoulder suspensory complex was disrupted in most cases. A good clinical outcome was obtained in two patients with percutaneous screw fixation for the glenoid fracture and rigid plate fixation for the acromion fracture and in one patient who did not have an acromion fracture. However, one patient who did not undergo fixation of the acromion fracture developed osteoarthrosis of the shoulder joint. In this type of fracture, it is important to stabilize the acromion fracture at the same time as fixation of the glenoid fracture.

show abstract

Acromial approach for treating glenoid fractures: A report of two cases and a literature review

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Glenoid Fracture with Scapular Involvement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Glenoid Fracture with Scapular Involvement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Superior approach for treating Ideberg III glenoid fractures with superior shoulder suspensory complex injury: A technical trick

Ideberg type III glenoid fractures are caused by indirect force: A report of four cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About