Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: There are multiple techniques to approach the glenohumeral joint. Our purpose was to quantify the average area of the glenohumeral joint exposed with 3 subscapularis approaches and determine the least invasive approach for placement of shoulder resurfacing and total shoulder arthroplasty instruments.
Methods: Ten forequarter cadaveric specimens were used. Subscapularis approaches were performed sequentially from split, partial tenotomy, and full tenotomy through the deltopectoral approach. Glenohumeral joint digital photographs were analyzed in Image J software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Shoulder resurfacing and total shoulder arthroplasty instruments were placed on the humeral head, and anatomic landmarks were identified.
Results: The average area of humeral head visible, from the least to the most invasive approach, was 3.2, 8.1, and 11.0 cm2, respectively. The average area of humeral head visible differed significantly according to the approach. Humeral head area increased 157% when the subscapularis split approach was compared with the partial tenotomy approach and 35% when the partial approach was compared with the full tenotomy approach. The average area of glenoid exposed from least to most invasive approach was 2.0, 2.3, and 2.5 cm2, respectively. No significant difference was found between the average area of the glenoid and the type of approach. Posterior structures were difficult to visualize for the subscapularis split approach. Partial tenotomy of the subscapularis allowed placement of resurfacing in 70% of the specimens and total arthroplasty instruments in 90%.
Conclusions: The subscapularis splitting approach allows adequate exposure for glenoid-based procedures, and the subscapularis approaches presented expose the glenohumeral joint in a step-wise manner.
Level Of Evidence: Anatomy study, cadaver dissection.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.013 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!