Glenoid Track Instability Management Score: Radiographic Modification of the Instability Severity Index Score - Matthew Provencher, MD | Orthopedic Knee & Shoulder Surgeon

Authors:

Giovanni Di Giacomo, Liam A Peebles, Mattia Pugliese, Travis J Dekker, Petar Golijanin, Anthony Sanchez, Matthew T Provencher

Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study is (1) to test the proposed treatment algorithm, the Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS), which incorporates the glenoid track concept into the instability severity index score (ISIS), and (2) to compare treatment decision-making using either GTIMS versus ISIS in 2 cohorts of patients with operatively treated anterior instability.

Methods: A multicenter, retrospective review of two consecutive groups consisting of 72 and 189 patients treated according to ISIS and GTIMS, respectively, was conducted. Inclusion criteria for all patients were ≥2 confirmed traumatic anterior shoulder instability events and a physical examination demonstrating a positive anterior apprehension and relocation test. The GTIMS was graded for all 189 patients in the cohort, which uses 3-dimensional computed tomography as the sole radiographic parameter to assess on-track (0 points) versus off-track (4 points) Hill-Sachs lesions. This method differs from ISIS, which uses multiple plain radiographs for the 4-point imaging portion of the score. Outcomes scores were compared within the GTIMS and ISIS groups, as well as between them for overall comparisons based on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and the mean rates of recurrent instability.

Results: A total of 261 consecutive patients from 2009 to 2014 who presented with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were treated according to either ISIS (n = 72/261, 27.6%) or GTIMS (n = 189/261, 72.4%). At a mean follow-up time of 33.2 months (range 24-49 months), the overall cohort mean ISIS of 2.9 ± 2.2 (range 0-9) was significantly higher than the mean GTIMS of 1.9 ± 1.9 (range = 0-9, P < .001). Of the 72 ISIS treated patients, 50 (69.4%) had an ISIS score of ≥ 4 and underwent a Latarjet, and the 22 patients (30.6%) with an ISIS score of < 4 underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair. Based on GTIMS in the 189-patient cohort, using the same cutoff of 4 to indicate the need for a Latarjet, 162 patients were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair (85.7%) and 27 with Latarjet (14.3%). The overall outcomes improved for patients treated with a Latarjet in both groups (GTIMS WOSI from 1099 [47.7% normal] to 395 [81.3% normal]; GTIMS SANE from 48 to 81; ISIS WOSI from 1050 [50% normal] to 345 [83.4% normal]; ISIS SANE from 50 to 84; P < .01). Similar positive outcomes were seen in patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair (GTIMS WOSI from 1062 [49.2% normal] to 402 [80.6% normal]; GTIMS SANE from 49 to 82; ISIS WOSI from 1080 [51.8% normal] to 490 [76.7% normal]; ISIS SANE from 48 to 77; P < .01). Of note, the patients with arthroscopically indicated ISIS had significantly worse outcomes scores than those treated arthroscopically according to GTIMS (P < .01). Of the 189 patients graded with GTIMS, there would have been 33 more Latarjet procedures recommended based on ISIS score. Thus the distribution of procedures based on ISIS versus GTIMS was significantly different (χ² = 45.950; P < .001), indicating a higher rate of recommending Latarjets when using ISIS versus GTIMS.

Conclusions: When ISIS scoring and plain radiograph parameters only are used, this predicted a 2-fold increase in recommending a Latarjet versus GTIMS scoring criteria, which uses advanced imaging and the on- and off-track principle to more conservatively delineate anterior instability treatment with promising postoperative patient outcomes. Overall, there were minimal differences in outcomes between GTIMS and ISIS Latarjet patients; however, better outcomes were seen in patients indicated for arthroscopic Bankart repair according to GTIMS and on-off track computed tomography scanning indications.

Level of evidence: II, Prospective Cohort Study.

For the complete study: Glenoid Track Instability Management Score: Radiographic Modification of the Instability Severity Index Score

Matthew Provencher, MD

Average rating:

66 reviews

James Wilson

Oct 11, 2024

by James Wilson on Matthew Provencher, MD

Senior Electronics development engineer

Wow the Steadman clinic and Doctor Matthew Provencher now that;s a super combination of expertise, experience, empathy, skill and a cherry picked staff with truly outstanding nurses and professional support staff. I was scared of shoulder surgery until I read Dr. Provencher BIO and talked to him. If your considering shoulder replacement surgery this is the place. In three weeks out now and people are amazed at my ability of movement and flexibility I have now. I love the Steadman Clinic and Dr. Matthew Provencher, He's Superman

Anne Miller

Jun 18, 2024

by Anne Miller on Matthew Provencher, MD

Grateful to Dr Provencher and his team

I am a 75-year old, active, athletic woman. Over the last few years, both of my shoulders reached a point where severe arthritis was affecting even day to day tasks. It started with one shoulder in 2021 and recently the second reverse shoulder replacement – both with Dr Provencher. Before my first one, I had received various recommendations including adjusting my lifestyle. Dr Provencher looked at my MRI and x-ray and asked what I enjoy doing and was quick to let me know I could be back to my active lifestyle soon – and he was right. He reads images faster and more accurately than any doctor I have consulted. He has many options available and if you need surgery he is the one to do it. Surgery is quick and the recovery is much easier than I anticipated. I am 10 days out from my second reverse shoulder and have no pain and gaining mobility already! My case for both shoulders was a bit more complicated due to bone integrity, severe arthritis and bicep tears. Dr Provencher has dealt innovatively with both complications and makes it seem straightforward although I know it was not. He is not only one an extraordinary surgeon, but also, a caring human being who takes the time with his patients and makes himself available if questions arise. His team is second to none – Maddy, Madison, Sam, Scott, Jasmin and in pre-op, Layla and Kevin – in terms of commitment, competence, compassion and responsiveness. Both times I have felt cared for and that resolving my situation mattered to him. Wherever you live, Dr Provencher and his team are the ones to trust. There is no need to live a compromised life!

Gene reiling

Jul 21, 2023

by Gene reiling on Matthew Provencher, MD

Success

If you are planning to see Dr Provencher ,do not hesitate ,do it. In 2018 Dr Provencher replaced my LCL. I had no complications and very little pain. I did my physical therapy as prescribed. I was able to ski 30 plus days the winter of 2019-2020. Before seeing dr Provencher I had spent a years time trying to solve my problem locally. I saw a pain specialist, orthopedic urgent care and a orthopedic surgeon. All had access to an mri done locally. It was also read by local radiologist. Pain dr gave injections as did orthopedic urgent care. No relief from pain. Orthopedic surgeon told me about arthritis, meniscus needing cleaning up and general deterioration from age. Told me to take ibuprofen for pain. At that time I reached out to Steadman Clinic. By luck of the draw I was assigned Dr Provencher. I took with me the mri that had been done locally and viewed by 3 local Drs and 1 PA. It took Dr Provencher less than a minute to tell me my problem was my LCL after viewing my mri. He told me my options . I selected surgery as I wanted to continue an active life style. It was a complete success!!

Submit your review
Name:
Email:
Website:
Review Title:
Rating:	1 2 3 4 5
Review:

Check this box to confirm you are human.
Submit Cancel