User login
The Effect of Arthroscopic Rotator Interval Closure on Glenohumeral Volume
Since Neer described the rotator interval in 1970, its closure, often used in conjunction with capsulorrhaphy, has become an important surgical technique in managing shoulder instability.1-11 Numerous studies have sought to define the function of the rotator interval.1-3,6-20 The etiology of lesions of the rotator interval has been debated, and there is evidence that such lesions may be in part congenital.21 Increased rotator interval depth and width, along with increased size of the distended inferior and posteroinferior joint capsule on magnetic resonance arthrography, have been reported in cases of multidirectional shoulder instability.22 However, confusion remains about the role of the rotator interval in shoulder instability and about the effect its closure has on shoulder function. No one knows the degree of volume reduction that results from closure of the rotator interval and whether medial and lateral sutures differ in the volume reduction achieved.
Cadaveric studies have shown that the rotator interval has an important role in shoulder motion.6,13-16,19,20,23 Harryman and colleagues13 found that sectioning the coracohumeral ligament (CHL) increased shoulder range of motion (ROM), and medial-to-lateral closure of the rotator interval restricted motion in all planes. Most notably, interval closure limited inferior translation in the adducted shoulder, posterior translation in the flexed adducted shoulder, and external rotation in the neutral position. Subsequent studies,17,18 using rotator interval closure combined with thermal capsulorrhaphy, confirmed the results reported by Harryman and colleagues.13
More recent cadaveric studies using superior-to-inferior rotator interval closures have shown a decrease in anterior translation but not posterior translation.14-16,19-21 A superior-to-inferior interval closure technique limited external rotation less than a medial-to-lateral closure did.13-16,19-21 The majority of arthroscopically described rotator interval closures involve a superior-to-inferior technique and use 2 or 3 sutures.1,3,9-11
Plausinis and colleagues15 examined the effects of an isolated medial, an isolated lateral, and a medial combined with a lateral closure of the rotator interval. They noted that all 3 methods limited anterior translation and motion by means of 6° flexion and 10° external rotation; however, there was no statistical difference between methods. They also found that occasionally the medial interval closure resulted in massive loss of external rotation. Earlier, Jost and colleagues14 noted that a medial rotator interval could cause this massive loss by tethering the CHL, resulting in a medial-to-lateral imbrication of the CHL.
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure has clinically demonstrated an additive effect on shoulder stability. The recurrence rate was lower for arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with arthroscopic rotator interval closure (8%) than for arthroscopic Bankart repair alone (13%).24 In addition, time to recurrent dislocation was longer (42 vs 13 months) for the group that underwent the combination of Bankart repair and rotator interval closure. Regarding the concern about loss of motion after arthroscopic rotator interval closure, Chiang and colleagues25 recently noted no significant loss of motion 5 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair with rotator interval closure.
What effect rotator interval closure has on intra-articular glenohumeral volume (GHV) remains unknown. Using a cadaveric model, Yamamoto and colleagues20 showed that decreasing GHV can increase the responsiveness of the glenohumeral joint to the intra-articular pressure. Thus, reducing the volume can improve stability in vitro by increasing the magnitude of negative pressure stabilizing the glenohumeral joint.
We conducted a study to quantify the effects of arthroscopic rotator interval closure on capsular volume and to determine whether medial and lateral interval closures resulted in different degrees of volume reduction. Our hypothesis was that shoulder volume would be significantly reduced by closing the rotator interval.
Materials and Methods
Previous studies have not specifically evaluated GHV after rotator interval closure. Our power analysis was performed with data from a study by Karas and colleagues,26 who evaluated GHV after capsular plication. To detect a capsular volume reduction of 20% per stitch, with a 2-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80%, we needed a sample size of 5 specimens per group.
After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we obtained 10 cadaveric shoulders (5 matched pairs). Exclusion criteria included arthroscopic evaluation revealing a full-thickness rotator cuff tear or significant osteoarthritis. Two shoulders had full-thickness cuff tears, leaving 8 shoulders to be tested; 6 of these were matched pairs. The shoulders were from 1 man (matched pair) and 4 women (2 matched pairs). Age ranged from 38 to 70 years (mean, 59.6 years). Differences in material properties between the specimens were accounted for by using primarily matched pairs.
The 2 study groups consisted of 4 shoulders each. After specimens were thawed, the skin, subcutaneous tissues, and periscapular muscles were removed from the shoulder. Only the capsule, biceps, and rotator cuff remained. For measurement purposes, the shoulders were mounted in a vice clamp in a beach-chair orientation. We placed a total of 2 portals with fully threaded 8.25-mm cannulas (Arthrex, Naples, Florida). A standard posterior portal was placed in the soft spot. A low anterior portal was then placed just superior to the subscapularis tendon. For arthroscopic examination and instrumentation in a saline environment, the shoulders were rotated into the lateral decubitus position, with suspension in 30° abduction and 20° forward flexion, by a rope attached to a pin in the distal shaft of the humerus.
In both groups, medial and lateral stitches with No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) were used to close the interval. The medial interval closure stitch was placed more than 10 mm away from the glenoid to prevent unpredictable CHL tethering; the lateral closure stitch was placed 10 mm lateral to the medial stitch (Figure 1).14 All sutures were placed intra-articularly under direct arthroscopic visualization, similar to the methods described in the literature.1,3,9-11 Sutures were passed through the superior glenohumeral ligament (SGHL) and through the upper subscapularis using a suture shuttle (SutureLasso; Arthrex) and Penetrator II Suture Retriever (Arthrex). The upper subscapularis was incorporated because of the unpredictable nature of the middle glenohumeral ligament (MGHL). Both rotator interval sutures were placed before tying either. In the medial group, the medial stitch was tied first, using alternating half-hitches, followed by the lateral stitch. In the lateral group, the lateral stitch was tied first, followed by the medial stitch. GHV was measured at baseline and after tying each stitch. Dr. Ponce instrumented all shoulders.
Modifying a beach-chair technique described by Miller and colleagues,27 we used a viscous fatty-acid sulfate solution, liquid soap, to measure GHV.27-29 A small slit in line with the fibers was made in the supraspinatus tendon just lateral to the musculotendinous junction. A 3-way stop-cock was placed into the joint though this defect. A 20-mL syringe with a 16-gauge needle was used to inject the soap. The needle was inserted into the rotator cuff interval, and the viscous solution was injected in 5-mL increments until there was active extravasation through the supraspinatus cannula (Figure 2). This technique, the “volcano method,” marked the maximum capacity of the joint. The joint was then copiously irrigated with normal saline and suctioned until all normal saline was evacuated. Dr. Rosenzweig took 2 measurements on each shoulder, and their mean was used for analysis.
The baseline measurement was taken with the 2 working cannulas in the shoulder joint. Measurements were obtained with cannulas to simulate normal clinical conditions. Subsequent measurements were done with the cannulas in place and inserted up to the same thread each time so as not to change the volume. The capsule and the rotator cuff were then dissected from the humerus so the size of the capsulolabral plication could be directly evaluated. Methylene blue was used to mark the capsular suture holes before removing the sutures. With use of a caliper, the size of the plication bite was measured (in millimeters).
Statistical Analysis
The primary outcome was percent reduction in GHV as a function of number of plications and size of plication. When only the first plication was tightened, the effect of position (medial or lateral) was also of interest. Percent volume reduction was calculated as (original – new) / original × 100. SAS 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was used to fit a repeated random-intercept regression model for each outcome. This technique properly accounts for the paired nature of the specimens and the repeated measures (baseline plus 2 plications). Model fit was assessed by the method of difference in log likelihood.
Results
In the medial group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 24.2% with a single medial stitch; in the lateral group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 35.1% (Figure 3). The difference was significant (P < .02). In the medial group, when a second lateral stitch was used, GHV was reduced by another 18.7%; in the lateral group, when a medial stitch was added, GHV was reduced by another 11.4%. Final GHV for the medial and lateral groups was 42.9% and 46.5%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in final GHV, regardless of which stitch was placed first. When the 2 groups were combined, GHV was reduced by 44.9% with use of medial and lateral rotator interval closure stitches.
Mean amount of tissue purchased, or “bite size,” was 18 mm with a lateral suture and 15 mm with a medial suture (P < .05). In addition, an increase in bite size to GHV reduction was essentially linear, where an increase in bite size of 1 mm reduced GHV by about 1% (Figure 4).
Discussion
Although there have been numerous clinical series and biomechanical studies focused on isolated rotator interval closure (or its use as an adjunct) in shoulder stabilization, the precise function of the rotator interval remains poorly understood.1-3,6-11,19 Consequently, the in vivo effects of interval closure are unknown.
Initial studies proposed that rotator interval closure limited inferior and posterior translation.30 More recent studies have demonstrated that rotator interval closure confers little effect on posterior instability but increases anterior stability in cadaveric models.15,16 Clinical series have provided evidence that rotator interval closure can increase anterior stability.1,3,7,9,12 In a series of isolated rotator interval closures for multidirectional instability, Field and colleagues12 found that preoperative anterior and inferior symptoms predominated over posterior symptoms. Isolated closure of the rotator interval resulted in 100% excellent results with no cases of recurrent instability. Moon and colleagues31 reported that arthroscopic rotator interval closure with or without inferior capsular plication in multidirectional instability and predominant symptomatic inferior instability has shown benefit by improving function and stability. Other clinical reports of rotator interval closure in conjunction with arthroscopic Bankart repair have suggested it has an additive effect on anterior shoulder stability without limiting motion.24,25
In our study, arthroscopic closure of the rotator interval with 2 superior-to-inferior stitches reduced intracapsular volume by 45%. Even though open capsular shifts use different surgical techniques, similar technique volume reduction studies have reported reductions between 34% and 54% with open shifts.27,30 It is unknown if the stability resulting from decreased GHV is primarily from increasing intra-articular pressures or from restricting ROM, or from a combination of both. In shoulders with multidirectional instability, the joint volume may be increased, the joint capsule may be enlarged, or the glenohumeral ligaments may be lax and thin.4,6,32,33 Yamamoto and colleagues19 stated that intra-articular pressure is determined by 3 factors: load, joint volume, and material properties of the capsule. Load is a constant; joint volume and material properties can be changed.19 In our study, material properties were controlled by using a majority of matched specimens. Regardless of the stabilizing mechanism, our study results demonstrated that arthroscopic rotator interval closure may be a powerful tool in reducing shoulder volume, a consistent principle of surgical techniques used in reestablishing shoulder stability.19,20
When a single rotator interval closure stitch was used, volume reduction with a lateral stitch was superior to that with a medial stitch. This finding is logical, as anatomically the dimensions of the rotator interval are larger laterally as the CHL fans out to insert on the greater and lesser tuberosities.14 This finding has also been reported in open capsular shifts for multidirectional instability, with a lateral humeral shift having a larger volume reduction than a medial glenoid shift.27 Miller and colleagues27 used the image of a cone, with its larger opening facing the humerus and narrower side facing the glenoid, to illustrate this difference in open capsular shifts.
Our study also showed a larger volume reduction with 2 rotator interval closure stitches than with a single interval stitch. As ROM testing has not shown a difference between results with 1 and 2 sutures, we recommend a minimum of 2 sutures for arthroscopic rotator interval closure.15 If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a significantly larger reduction in shoulder volume. We think this is because of a larger amount of capsule being purchased with lateral closure (Figure 5). However, if a medial stitch is used, it is important to not place it too near the glenoid to avoid CHL tethering and subsequent excessive loss of external rotation.15
This study had several weaknesses. First, it was a cadaveric study, and use of specimens not known to have instability or specific rotator interval injury may make generalization to a clinical situation difficult. Second, although our power analysis called for 5 shoulders in each group, full-thickness rotator cuff tears rendered 2 shoulders unusable. This reduced our sample sizes and potentially decreased the power of the study, though the data demonstrated statistically significant differences. Third, we did not compare the effects of an open medial-to-lateral imbrication of the rotator interval on intracapsular volume with the effects of our arthroscopic method. We also did not assess our specimens’ ROM, effects of interval closure stitches on shoulder stability, or glenohumeral contact surface pressures, as these factors have already been studied.13-19 Instead, we focused on the effects of rotator interval closure on intracapsular volume, which had not been quantified until now. The clinical significance of such a volume reduction is unknown, especially with respect to influence on ROM, but the degree of volume reduction was larger than with previously reported arthroscopic instability repairs and smaller than with open capsular shifts, demonstrating that it may be a powerful tool in restoring stability in an unstable shoulder.26-30,34 Fourth, the role of isolated rotator interval closure is poorly defined, as only 1 clinical series of isolated rotator interval closure has been reported thus far.12 It has been far more common for rotator interval closure to be used with Bankart repair or capsulorrhaphy.1-3,7-9
In a cadaveric study by Provencher and colleagues,16 open rotator interval closure with medial-to-lateral imbrication of the interval altered shoulder kinematics differently from what occurred with arthroscopic closure of the MGHL to the SGHL, resulting in superior-to-inferior shift. Comparing the 2 methods may therefore be inappropriate. Currently we reserve rotator interval closure for infrequent cases of revision instability and cases in which glenoid bone loss is marginal (5%-15%) and there is a willingness to potentially sacrifice ROM to restore stability and avoid an open stabilization procedure. Continued investigation into the clinical role of rotator interval closure in shoulder stability is needed. We should identify the pathology in a patient with instability and use this technique as an adjuvant to other stabilization procedures.
Conclusion
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure with 2 plication stitches is a powerful tool in reducing the intracapsular volume of the shoulder. If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral rotator interval closure stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a larger reduction in shoulder volume.
1. Creighton RA, Romeo AA, Brown FM, Hayden JK, Verma NN. Revision arthroscopic shoulder instability repair. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(7):703-709.
2. Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability. Two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(7):991-1003.
3. Gartsman GM, Taverna E, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair in glenohumeral instability: description of an operative technique. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(3):330-332.
4. Neer CS 2nd, Foster CR. Inferior capsular shift for involuntary inferior and multidirectional instability of the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(6):897-908.
5. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humerus fractures: I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077-1089.
6. Nobuhara K, Ikeda H. Rotator interval lesion. Clin Orthop. 1987;(223):44-50.
7. Rowe CR, Zarins B, Ciullo JV. Recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder after surgical repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):159-168.
8. Rowe CR, Zarins B. Recurrent transient subluxation of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(6):863-872.
9. Stokes DA, Savoie FH, Field LD. Arthroscopic repair of anterior glenohumeral instability and rotator interval lesions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(4):529-539.
10. Taverna E, Sansone V, Battistella F. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair: the three-step all-inside technique. Arthroscopy. 2004;20 Suppl 2:105-109.
11. Treacy SH, Field LD, Savoie FH. Rotator interval capsule closure: an arthroscopic technique. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(1):103-106.
12. Field LD, Warren RF, O’Brien SJ, Altcheck DW, Wickiewicz TL. Isolated closure of rotator interval defects for shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(5):557-563.
13. Harryman DT 2nd, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Matsen FA 3rd. The role of the rotator interval capsule in passive motion and stability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(1):53-66.
14. Jost B, Koch PP, Gerber C. Anatomy and functional aspects of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(4):336-341.
15. Plausinis D, Bravman JT, Heywood C, Kummer FJ, Kwon YM, Jazrawi LM. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure: effect of sutures on glenohumeral motion and anterior-posterior translation. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1656-1661.
16. Provencher MT, Mologne TS, Hongo M, Zhao K, Tasto JP, An KN. Arthroscopic versus open rotator interval closure: biomechanical evaluation of stability and motion. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):583-592.
17. Selecky MT, Tibone JE, Yang BY, et al. Glenohumeral joint translation after thermal capsuloplasty of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):139-143.
18. Wolf R, Zheng N, Iero J, Weichel D. The effects of thermal capsulorrhaphy and rotator interval closure on multidirectional laxity in the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(10):1044-1049.
19. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. Effect of rotator interval closure on glenohumeral stability and motion: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(6):750-758.
20. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. The effect of the inferior capsular shift on shoulder intra-articular pressure: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):939-944.
21. Cole BJ, Rodeo SA, O’Brien SJ, et al. The anatomy and histology of the rotator interval capsule of the shoulder. Clin Orthop. 2001;(390):129-137.
22. Lee HJ, Kim NR, Moon SG, Ko SM, Park JY. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: rotator interval dimension and capsular laxity evaluation using MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(2):231-238.
23. Warner JP, Deng X, Warren RF, Torzilli PA, O’Brien SJ. Superoinferior translation in intact and vented glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(2):99-105.
24. Chechik O, Maman E, Dolkart O, Khashan M, Shabtai L, Mozes G. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure in shoulder instability repair: a retrospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1056-1062.
25. Chiang, E, Wang J, Wang S, et al. Arthroscopic posteroinferior capsular plication and rotator interval closure after Bankart repair in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability—a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Injury. 2010;41(10):1075-1078.
26. Karas SG, Creighton RA, DeMorat GJ. Glenohumeral volume reduction in arthroscopic shoulder reconstruction: a cadaveric analysis of suture plication and thermal capsulorrhaphy. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(2):179-184.
27. Miller MD, Larsen KM, Luke T, Leis HT, Plancher KD. Anterior capsular shift volume reduction: an in vitro comparison of 3 techniques. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(4):350-354.
28. Luke TA, Rovner AD, Karas SG, Hawkins RJ, Plancher KD. Volumetric change in the shoulder capsule after open inferior capsular shift versus arthroscopic thermal capsular shrinkage: a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(2):146-149.
29. Ponce BA, Rosenzweig SD, Thompson KJ, Tokish J. Sequential volume reduction with capsular plications: relationship between cumulative size of plications and volumetric reduction for multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):526-531.
30. Lubowitz J, Bartolozzi A, Rubenstein D, et al. How much does inferior capsular shift reduce shoulder volume? Clin Orthop. 1996;(328):86-90.
31. Moon YL, Singh H, Yang H, Chul LK. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure by purse string suture for symptomatic inferior shoulder instability. Orthopedics. 2011;34(4).
32. Jerosch J, Castro WH. Shoulder instability in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: an indication for surgical treatment? Acta Orthop Belg. 1990;56(2):451-453.
33. Schenk TJ, Brems JJ. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(1):65-72.
34. Cohen SB, Wiley W, Goradia VK, Pearson S, Miller MD. Anterior capsulorrhaphy: an in vitro comparison of volume reduction. Arthroscopic plication versus open capsular shift. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):659-664.
Since Neer described the rotator interval in 1970, its closure, often used in conjunction with capsulorrhaphy, has become an important surgical technique in managing shoulder instability.1-11 Numerous studies have sought to define the function of the rotator interval.1-3,6-20 The etiology of lesions of the rotator interval has been debated, and there is evidence that such lesions may be in part congenital.21 Increased rotator interval depth and width, along with increased size of the distended inferior and posteroinferior joint capsule on magnetic resonance arthrography, have been reported in cases of multidirectional shoulder instability.22 However, confusion remains about the role of the rotator interval in shoulder instability and about the effect its closure has on shoulder function. No one knows the degree of volume reduction that results from closure of the rotator interval and whether medial and lateral sutures differ in the volume reduction achieved.
Cadaveric studies have shown that the rotator interval has an important role in shoulder motion.6,13-16,19,20,23 Harryman and colleagues13 found that sectioning the coracohumeral ligament (CHL) increased shoulder range of motion (ROM), and medial-to-lateral closure of the rotator interval restricted motion in all planes. Most notably, interval closure limited inferior translation in the adducted shoulder, posterior translation in the flexed adducted shoulder, and external rotation in the neutral position. Subsequent studies,17,18 using rotator interval closure combined with thermal capsulorrhaphy, confirmed the results reported by Harryman and colleagues.13
More recent cadaveric studies using superior-to-inferior rotator interval closures have shown a decrease in anterior translation but not posterior translation.14-16,19-21 A superior-to-inferior interval closure technique limited external rotation less than a medial-to-lateral closure did.13-16,19-21 The majority of arthroscopically described rotator interval closures involve a superior-to-inferior technique and use 2 or 3 sutures.1,3,9-11
Plausinis and colleagues15 examined the effects of an isolated medial, an isolated lateral, and a medial combined with a lateral closure of the rotator interval. They noted that all 3 methods limited anterior translation and motion by means of 6° flexion and 10° external rotation; however, there was no statistical difference between methods. They also found that occasionally the medial interval closure resulted in massive loss of external rotation. Earlier, Jost and colleagues14 noted that a medial rotator interval could cause this massive loss by tethering the CHL, resulting in a medial-to-lateral imbrication of the CHL.
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure has clinically demonstrated an additive effect on shoulder stability. The recurrence rate was lower for arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with arthroscopic rotator interval closure (8%) than for arthroscopic Bankart repair alone (13%).24 In addition, time to recurrent dislocation was longer (42 vs 13 months) for the group that underwent the combination of Bankart repair and rotator interval closure. Regarding the concern about loss of motion after arthroscopic rotator interval closure, Chiang and colleagues25 recently noted no significant loss of motion 5 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair with rotator interval closure.
What effect rotator interval closure has on intra-articular glenohumeral volume (GHV) remains unknown. Using a cadaveric model, Yamamoto and colleagues20 showed that decreasing GHV can increase the responsiveness of the glenohumeral joint to the intra-articular pressure. Thus, reducing the volume can improve stability in vitro by increasing the magnitude of negative pressure stabilizing the glenohumeral joint.
We conducted a study to quantify the effects of arthroscopic rotator interval closure on capsular volume and to determine whether medial and lateral interval closures resulted in different degrees of volume reduction. Our hypothesis was that shoulder volume would be significantly reduced by closing the rotator interval.
Materials and Methods
Previous studies have not specifically evaluated GHV after rotator interval closure. Our power analysis was performed with data from a study by Karas and colleagues,26 who evaluated GHV after capsular plication. To detect a capsular volume reduction of 20% per stitch, with a 2-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80%, we needed a sample size of 5 specimens per group.
After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we obtained 10 cadaveric shoulders (5 matched pairs). Exclusion criteria included arthroscopic evaluation revealing a full-thickness rotator cuff tear or significant osteoarthritis. Two shoulders had full-thickness cuff tears, leaving 8 shoulders to be tested; 6 of these were matched pairs. The shoulders were from 1 man (matched pair) and 4 women (2 matched pairs). Age ranged from 38 to 70 years (mean, 59.6 years). Differences in material properties between the specimens were accounted for by using primarily matched pairs.
The 2 study groups consisted of 4 shoulders each. After specimens were thawed, the skin, subcutaneous tissues, and periscapular muscles were removed from the shoulder. Only the capsule, biceps, and rotator cuff remained. For measurement purposes, the shoulders were mounted in a vice clamp in a beach-chair orientation. We placed a total of 2 portals with fully threaded 8.25-mm cannulas (Arthrex, Naples, Florida). A standard posterior portal was placed in the soft spot. A low anterior portal was then placed just superior to the subscapularis tendon. For arthroscopic examination and instrumentation in a saline environment, the shoulders were rotated into the lateral decubitus position, with suspension in 30° abduction and 20° forward flexion, by a rope attached to a pin in the distal shaft of the humerus.
In both groups, medial and lateral stitches with No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) were used to close the interval. The medial interval closure stitch was placed more than 10 mm away from the glenoid to prevent unpredictable CHL tethering; the lateral closure stitch was placed 10 mm lateral to the medial stitch (Figure 1).14 All sutures were placed intra-articularly under direct arthroscopic visualization, similar to the methods described in the literature.1,3,9-11 Sutures were passed through the superior glenohumeral ligament (SGHL) and through the upper subscapularis using a suture shuttle (SutureLasso; Arthrex) and Penetrator II Suture Retriever (Arthrex). The upper subscapularis was incorporated because of the unpredictable nature of the middle glenohumeral ligament (MGHL). Both rotator interval sutures were placed before tying either. In the medial group, the medial stitch was tied first, using alternating half-hitches, followed by the lateral stitch. In the lateral group, the lateral stitch was tied first, followed by the medial stitch. GHV was measured at baseline and after tying each stitch. Dr. Ponce instrumented all shoulders.
Modifying a beach-chair technique described by Miller and colleagues,27 we used a viscous fatty-acid sulfate solution, liquid soap, to measure GHV.27-29 A small slit in line with the fibers was made in the supraspinatus tendon just lateral to the musculotendinous junction. A 3-way stop-cock was placed into the joint though this defect. A 20-mL syringe with a 16-gauge needle was used to inject the soap. The needle was inserted into the rotator cuff interval, and the viscous solution was injected in 5-mL increments until there was active extravasation through the supraspinatus cannula (Figure 2). This technique, the “volcano method,” marked the maximum capacity of the joint. The joint was then copiously irrigated with normal saline and suctioned until all normal saline was evacuated. Dr. Rosenzweig took 2 measurements on each shoulder, and their mean was used for analysis.
The baseline measurement was taken with the 2 working cannulas in the shoulder joint. Measurements were obtained with cannulas to simulate normal clinical conditions. Subsequent measurements were done with the cannulas in place and inserted up to the same thread each time so as not to change the volume. The capsule and the rotator cuff were then dissected from the humerus so the size of the capsulolabral plication could be directly evaluated. Methylene blue was used to mark the capsular suture holes before removing the sutures. With use of a caliper, the size of the plication bite was measured (in millimeters).
Statistical Analysis
The primary outcome was percent reduction in GHV as a function of number of plications and size of plication. When only the first plication was tightened, the effect of position (medial or lateral) was also of interest. Percent volume reduction was calculated as (original – new) / original × 100. SAS 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was used to fit a repeated random-intercept regression model for each outcome. This technique properly accounts for the paired nature of the specimens and the repeated measures (baseline plus 2 plications). Model fit was assessed by the method of difference in log likelihood.
Results
In the medial group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 24.2% with a single medial stitch; in the lateral group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 35.1% (Figure 3). The difference was significant (P < .02). In the medial group, when a second lateral stitch was used, GHV was reduced by another 18.7%; in the lateral group, when a medial stitch was added, GHV was reduced by another 11.4%. Final GHV for the medial and lateral groups was 42.9% and 46.5%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in final GHV, regardless of which stitch was placed first. When the 2 groups were combined, GHV was reduced by 44.9% with use of medial and lateral rotator interval closure stitches.
Mean amount of tissue purchased, or “bite size,” was 18 mm with a lateral suture and 15 mm with a medial suture (P < .05). In addition, an increase in bite size to GHV reduction was essentially linear, where an increase in bite size of 1 mm reduced GHV by about 1% (Figure 4).
Discussion
Although there have been numerous clinical series and biomechanical studies focused on isolated rotator interval closure (or its use as an adjunct) in shoulder stabilization, the precise function of the rotator interval remains poorly understood.1-3,6-11,19 Consequently, the in vivo effects of interval closure are unknown.
Initial studies proposed that rotator interval closure limited inferior and posterior translation.30 More recent studies have demonstrated that rotator interval closure confers little effect on posterior instability but increases anterior stability in cadaveric models.15,16 Clinical series have provided evidence that rotator interval closure can increase anterior stability.1,3,7,9,12 In a series of isolated rotator interval closures for multidirectional instability, Field and colleagues12 found that preoperative anterior and inferior symptoms predominated over posterior symptoms. Isolated closure of the rotator interval resulted in 100% excellent results with no cases of recurrent instability. Moon and colleagues31 reported that arthroscopic rotator interval closure with or without inferior capsular plication in multidirectional instability and predominant symptomatic inferior instability has shown benefit by improving function and stability. Other clinical reports of rotator interval closure in conjunction with arthroscopic Bankart repair have suggested it has an additive effect on anterior shoulder stability without limiting motion.24,25
In our study, arthroscopic closure of the rotator interval with 2 superior-to-inferior stitches reduced intracapsular volume by 45%. Even though open capsular shifts use different surgical techniques, similar technique volume reduction studies have reported reductions between 34% and 54% with open shifts.27,30 It is unknown if the stability resulting from decreased GHV is primarily from increasing intra-articular pressures or from restricting ROM, or from a combination of both. In shoulders with multidirectional instability, the joint volume may be increased, the joint capsule may be enlarged, or the glenohumeral ligaments may be lax and thin.4,6,32,33 Yamamoto and colleagues19 stated that intra-articular pressure is determined by 3 factors: load, joint volume, and material properties of the capsule. Load is a constant; joint volume and material properties can be changed.19 In our study, material properties were controlled by using a majority of matched specimens. Regardless of the stabilizing mechanism, our study results demonstrated that arthroscopic rotator interval closure may be a powerful tool in reducing shoulder volume, a consistent principle of surgical techniques used in reestablishing shoulder stability.19,20
When a single rotator interval closure stitch was used, volume reduction with a lateral stitch was superior to that with a medial stitch. This finding is logical, as anatomically the dimensions of the rotator interval are larger laterally as the CHL fans out to insert on the greater and lesser tuberosities.14 This finding has also been reported in open capsular shifts for multidirectional instability, with a lateral humeral shift having a larger volume reduction than a medial glenoid shift.27 Miller and colleagues27 used the image of a cone, with its larger opening facing the humerus and narrower side facing the glenoid, to illustrate this difference in open capsular shifts.
Our study also showed a larger volume reduction with 2 rotator interval closure stitches than with a single interval stitch. As ROM testing has not shown a difference between results with 1 and 2 sutures, we recommend a minimum of 2 sutures for arthroscopic rotator interval closure.15 If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a significantly larger reduction in shoulder volume. We think this is because of a larger amount of capsule being purchased with lateral closure (Figure 5). However, if a medial stitch is used, it is important to not place it too near the glenoid to avoid CHL tethering and subsequent excessive loss of external rotation.15
This study had several weaknesses. First, it was a cadaveric study, and use of specimens not known to have instability or specific rotator interval injury may make generalization to a clinical situation difficult. Second, although our power analysis called for 5 shoulders in each group, full-thickness rotator cuff tears rendered 2 shoulders unusable. This reduced our sample sizes and potentially decreased the power of the study, though the data demonstrated statistically significant differences. Third, we did not compare the effects of an open medial-to-lateral imbrication of the rotator interval on intracapsular volume with the effects of our arthroscopic method. We also did not assess our specimens’ ROM, effects of interval closure stitches on shoulder stability, or glenohumeral contact surface pressures, as these factors have already been studied.13-19 Instead, we focused on the effects of rotator interval closure on intracapsular volume, which had not been quantified until now. The clinical significance of such a volume reduction is unknown, especially with respect to influence on ROM, but the degree of volume reduction was larger than with previously reported arthroscopic instability repairs and smaller than with open capsular shifts, demonstrating that it may be a powerful tool in restoring stability in an unstable shoulder.26-30,34 Fourth, the role of isolated rotator interval closure is poorly defined, as only 1 clinical series of isolated rotator interval closure has been reported thus far.12 It has been far more common for rotator interval closure to be used with Bankart repair or capsulorrhaphy.1-3,7-9
In a cadaveric study by Provencher and colleagues,16 open rotator interval closure with medial-to-lateral imbrication of the interval altered shoulder kinematics differently from what occurred with arthroscopic closure of the MGHL to the SGHL, resulting in superior-to-inferior shift. Comparing the 2 methods may therefore be inappropriate. Currently we reserve rotator interval closure for infrequent cases of revision instability and cases in which glenoid bone loss is marginal (5%-15%) and there is a willingness to potentially sacrifice ROM to restore stability and avoid an open stabilization procedure. Continued investigation into the clinical role of rotator interval closure in shoulder stability is needed. We should identify the pathology in a patient with instability and use this technique as an adjuvant to other stabilization procedures.
Conclusion
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure with 2 plication stitches is a powerful tool in reducing the intracapsular volume of the shoulder. If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral rotator interval closure stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a larger reduction in shoulder volume.
Since Neer described the rotator interval in 1970, its closure, often used in conjunction with capsulorrhaphy, has become an important surgical technique in managing shoulder instability.1-11 Numerous studies have sought to define the function of the rotator interval.1-3,6-20 The etiology of lesions of the rotator interval has been debated, and there is evidence that such lesions may be in part congenital.21 Increased rotator interval depth and width, along with increased size of the distended inferior and posteroinferior joint capsule on magnetic resonance arthrography, have been reported in cases of multidirectional shoulder instability.22 However, confusion remains about the role of the rotator interval in shoulder instability and about the effect its closure has on shoulder function. No one knows the degree of volume reduction that results from closure of the rotator interval and whether medial and lateral sutures differ in the volume reduction achieved.
Cadaveric studies have shown that the rotator interval has an important role in shoulder motion.6,13-16,19,20,23 Harryman and colleagues13 found that sectioning the coracohumeral ligament (CHL) increased shoulder range of motion (ROM), and medial-to-lateral closure of the rotator interval restricted motion in all planes. Most notably, interval closure limited inferior translation in the adducted shoulder, posterior translation in the flexed adducted shoulder, and external rotation in the neutral position. Subsequent studies,17,18 using rotator interval closure combined with thermal capsulorrhaphy, confirmed the results reported by Harryman and colleagues.13
More recent cadaveric studies using superior-to-inferior rotator interval closures have shown a decrease in anterior translation but not posterior translation.14-16,19-21 A superior-to-inferior interval closure technique limited external rotation less than a medial-to-lateral closure did.13-16,19-21 The majority of arthroscopically described rotator interval closures involve a superior-to-inferior technique and use 2 or 3 sutures.1,3,9-11
Plausinis and colleagues15 examined the effects of an isolated medial, an isolated lateral, and a medial combined with a lateral closure of the rotator interval. They noted that all 3 methods limited anterior translation and motion by means of 6° flexion and 10° external rotation; however, there was no statistical difference between methods. They also found that occasionally the medial interval closure resulted in massive loss of external rotation. Earlier, Jost and colleagues14 noted that a medial rotator interval could cause this massive loss by tethering the CHL, resulting in a medial-to-lateral imbrication of the CHL.
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure has clinically demonstrated an additive effect on shoulder stability. The recurrence rate was lower for arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with arthroscopic rotator interval closure (8%) than for arthroscopic Bankart repair alone (13%).24 In addition, time to recurrent dislocation was longer (42 vs 13 months) for the group that underwent the combination of Bankart repair and rotator interval closure. Regarding the concern about loss of motion after arthroscopic rotator interval closure, Chiang and colleagues25 recently noted no significant loss of motion 5 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair with rotator interval closure.
What effect rotator interval closure has on intra-articular glenohumeral volume (GHV) remains unknown. Using a cadaveric model, Yamamoto and colleagues20 showed that decreasing GHV can increase the responsiveness of the glenohumeral joint to the intra-articular pressure. Thus, reducing the volume can improve stability in vitro by increasing the magnitude of negative pressure stabilizing the glenohumeral joint.
We conducted a study to quantify the effects of arthroscopic rotator interval closure on capsular volume and to determine whether medial and lateral interval closures resulted in different degrees of volume reduction. Our hypothesis was that shoulder volume would be significantly reduced by closing the rotator interval.
Materials and Methods
Previous studies have not specifically evaluated GHV after rotator interval closure. Our power analysis was performed with data from a study by Karas and colleagues,26 who evaluated GHV after capsular plication. To detect a capsular volume reduction of 20% per stitch, with a 2-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80%, we needed a sample size of 5 specimens per group.
After receiving institutional review board approval for this study, we obtained 10 cadaveric shoulders (5 matched pairs). Exclusion criteria included arthroscopic evaluation revealing a full-thickness rotator cuff tear or significant osteoarthritis. Two shoulders had full-thickness cuff tears, leaving 8 shoulders to be tested; 6 of these were matched pairs. The shoulders were from 1 man (matched pair) and 4 women (2 matched pairs). Age ranged from 38 to 70 years (mean, 59.6 years). Differences in material properties between the specimens were accounted for by using primarily matched pairs.
The 2 study groups consisted of 4 shoulders each. After specimens were thawed, the skin, subcutaneous tissues, and periscapular muscles were removed from the shoulder. Only the capsule, biceps, and rotator cuff remained. For measurement purposes, the shoulders were mounted in a vice clamp in a beach-chair orientation. We placed a total of 2 portals with fully threaded 8.25-mm cannulas (Arthrex, Naples, Florida). A standard posterior portal was placed in the soft spot. A low anterior portal was then placed just superior to the subscapularis tendon. For arthroscopic examination and instrumentation in a saline environment, the shoulders were rotated into the lateral decubitus position, with suspension in 30° abduction and 20° forward flexion, by a rope attached to a pin in the distal shaft of the humerus.
In both groups, medial and lateral stitches with No. 2 FiberWire (Arthrex) were used to close the interval. The medial interval closure stitch was placed more than 10 mm away from the glenoid to prevent unpredictable CHL tethering; the lateral closure stitch was placed 10 mm lateral to the medial stitch (Figure 1).14 All sutures were placed intra-articularly under direct arthroscopic visualization, similar to the methods described in the literature.1,3,9-11 Sutures were passed through the superior glenohumeral ligament (SGHL) and through the upper subscapularis using a suture shuttle (SutureLasso; Arthrex) and Penetrator II Suture Retriever (Arthrex). The upper subscapularis was incorporated because of the unpredictable nature of the middle glenohumeral ligament (MGHL). Both rotator interval sutures were placed before tying either. In the medial group, the medial stitch was tied first, using alternating half-hitches, followed by the lateral stitch. In the lateral group, the lateral stitch was tied first, followed by the medial stitch. GHV was measured at baseline and after tying each stitch. Dr. Ponce instrumented all shoulders.
Modifying a beach-chair technique described by Miller and colleagues,27 we used a viscous fatty-acid sulfate solution, liquid soap, to measure GHV.27-29 A small slit in line with the fibers was made in the supraspinatus tendon just lateral to the musculotendinous junction. A 3-way stop-cock was placed into the joint though this defect. A 20-mL syringe with a 16-gauge needle was used to inject the soap. The needle was inserted into the rotator cuff interval, and the viscous solution was injected in 5-mL increments until there was active extravasation through the supraspinatus cannula (Figure 2). This technique, the “volcano method,” marked the maximum capacity of the joint. The joint was then copiously irrigated with normal saline and suctioned until all normal saline was evacuated. Dr. Rosenzweig took 2 measurements on each shoulder, and their mean was used for analysis.
The baseline measurement was taken with the 2 working cannulas in the shoulder joint. Measurements were obtained with cannulas to simulate normal clinical conditions. Subsequent measurements were done with the cannulas in place and inserted up to the same thread each time so as not to change the volume. The capsule and the rotator cuff were then dissected from the humerus so the size of the capsulolabral plication could be directly evaluated. Methylene blue was used to mark the capsular suture holes before removing the sutures. With use of a caliper, the size of the plication bite was measured (in millimeters).
Statistical Analysis
The primary outcome was percent reduction in GHV as a function of number of plications and size of plication. When only the first plication was tightened, the effect of position (medial or lateral) was also of interest. Percent volume reduction was calculated as (original – new) / original × 100. SAS 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was used to fit a repeated random-intercept regression model for each outcome. This technique properly accounts for the paired nature of the specimens and the repeated measures (baseline plus 2 plications). Model fit was assessed by the method of difference in log likelihood.
Results
In the medial group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 24.2% with a single medial stitch; in the lateral group, GHV was reduced by a mean of 35.1% (Figure 3). The difference was significant (P < .02). In the medial group, when a second lateral stitch was used, GHV was reduced by another 18.7%; in the lateral group, when a medial stitch was added, GHV was reduced by another 11.4%. Final GHV for the medial and lateral groups was 42.9% and 46.5%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in final GHV, regardless of which stitch was placed first. When the 2 groups were combined, GHV was reduced by 44.9% with use of medial and lateral rotator interval closure stitches.
Mean amount of tissue purchased, or “bite size,” was 18 mm with a lateral suture and 15 mm with a medial suture (P < .05). In addition, an increase in bite size to GHV reduction was essentially linear, where an increase in bite size of 1 mm reduced GHV by about 1% (Figure 4).
Discussion
Although there have been numerous clinical series and biomechanical studies focused on isolated rotator interval closure (or its use as an adjunct) in shoulder stabilization, the precise function of the rotator interval remains poorly understood.1-3,6-11,19 Consequently, the in vivo effects of interval closure are unknown.
Initial studies proposed that rotator interval closure limited inferior and posterior translation.30 More recent studies have demonstrated that rotator interval closure confers little effect on posterior instability but increases anterior stability in cadaveric models.15,16 Clinical series have provided evidence that rotator interval closure can increase anterior stability.1,3,7,9,12 In a series of isolated rotator interval closures for multidirectional instability, Field and colleagues12 found that preoperative anterior and inferior symptoms predominated over posterior symptoms. Isolated closure of the rotator interval resulted in 100% excellent results with no cases of recurrent instability. Moon and colleagues31 reported that arthroscopic rotator interval closure with or without inferior capsular plication in multidirectional instability and predominant symptomatic inferior instability has shown benefit by improving function and stability. Other clinical reports of rotator interval closure in conjunction with arthroscopic Bankart repair have suggested it has an additive effect on anterior shoulder stability without limiting motion.24,25
In our study, arthroscopic closure of the rotator interval with 2 superior-to-inferior stitches reduced intracapsular volume by 45%. Even though open capsular shifts use different surgical techniques, similar technique volume reduction studies have reported reductions between 34% and 54% with open shifts.27,30 It is unknown if the stability resulting from decreased GHV is primarily from increasing intra-articular pressures or from restricting ROM, or from a combination of both. In shoulders with multidirectional instability, the joint volume may be increased, the joint capsule may be enlarged, or the glenohumeral ligaments may be lax and thin.4,6,32,33 Yamamoto and colleagues19 stated that intra-articular pressure is determined by 3 factors: load, joint volume, and material properties of the capsule. Load is a constant; joint volume and material properties can be changed.19 In our study, material properties were controlled by using a majority of matched specimens. Regardless of the stabilizing mechanism, our study results demonstrated that arthroscopic rotator interval closure may be a powerful tool in reducing shoulder volume, a consistent principle of surgical techniques used in reestablishing shoulder stability.19,20
When a single rotator interval closure stitch was used, volume reduction with a lateral stitch was superior to that with a medial stitch. This finding is logical, as anatomically the dimensions of the rotator interval are larger laterally as the CHL fans out to insert on the greater and lesser tuberosities.14 This finding has also been reported in open capsular shifts for multidirectional instability, with a lateral humeral shift having a larger volume reduction than a medial glenoid shift.27 Miller and colleagues27 used the image of a cone, with its larger opening facing the humerus and narrower side facing the glenoid, to illustrate this difference in open capsular shifts.
Our study also showed a larger volume reduction with 2 rotator interval closure stitches than with a single interval stitch. As ROM testing has not shown a difference between results with 1 and 2 sutures, we recommend a minimum of 2 sutures for arthroscopic rotator interval closure.15 If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a significantly larger reduction in shoulder volume. We think this is because of a larger amount of capsule being purchased with lateral closure (Figure 5). However, if a medial stitch is used, it is important to not place it too near the glenoid to avoid CHL tethering and subsequent excessive loss of external rotation.15
This study had several weaknesses. First, it was a cadaveric study, and use of specimens not known to have instability or specific rotator interval injury may make generalization to a clinical situation difficult. Second, although our power analysis called for 5 shoulders in each group, full-thickness rotator cuff tears rendered 2 shoulders unusable. This reduced our sample sizes and potentially decreased the power of the study, though the data demonstrated statistically significant differences. Third, we did not compare the effects of an open medial-to-lateral imbrication of the rotator interval on intracapsular volume with the effects of our arthroscopic method. We also did not assess our specimens’ ROM, effects of interval closure stitches on shoulder stability, or glenohumeral contact surface pressures, as these factors have already been studied.13-19 Instead, we focused on the effects of rotator interval closure on intracapsular volume, which had not been quantified until now. The clinical significance of such a volume reduction is unknown, especially with respect to influence on ROM, but the degree of volume reduction was larger than with previously reported arthroscopic instability repairs and smaller than with open capsular shifts, demonstrating that it may be a powerful tool in restoring stability in an unstable shoulder.26-30,34 Fourth, the role of isolated rotator interval closure is poorly defined, as only 1 clinical series of isolated rotator interval closure has been reported thus far.12 It has been far more common for rotator interval closure to be used with Bankart repair or capsulorrhaphy.1-3,7-9
In a cadaveric study by Provencher and colleagues,16 open rotator interval closure with medial-to-lateral imbrication of the interval altered shoulder kinematics differently from what occurred with arthroscopic closure of the MGHL to the SGHL, resulting in superior-to-inferior shift. Comparing the 2 methods may therefore be inappropriate. Currently we reserve rotator interval closure for infrequent cases of revision instability and cases in which glenoid bone loss is marginal (5%-15%) and there is a willingness to potentially sacrifice ROM to restore stability and avoid an open stabilization procedure. Continued investigation into the clinical role of rotator interval closure in shoulder stability is needed. We should identify the pathology in a patient with instability and use this technique as an adjuvant to other stabilization procedures.
Conclusion
Arthroscopic rotator interval closure with 2 plication stitches is a powerful tool in reducing the intracapsular volume of the shoulder. If a single plication stitch is preferred, a lateral rotator interval closure stitch (vs a medial stitch) can be used for a larger reduction in shoulder volume.
1. Creighton RA, Romeo AA, Brown FM, Hayden JK, Verma NN. Revision arthroscopic shoulder instability repair. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(7):703-709.
2. Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability. Two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(7):991-1003.
3. Gartsman GM, Taverna E, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair in glenohumeral instability: description of an operative technique. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(3):330-332.
4. Neer CS 2nd, Foster CR. Inferior capsular shift for involuntary inferior and multidirectional instability of the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(6):897-908.
5. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humerus fractures: I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077-1089.
6. Nobuhara K, Ikeda H. Rotator interval lesion. Clin Orthop. 1987;(223):44-50.
7. Rowe CR, Zarins B, Ciullo JV. Recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder after surgical repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):159-168.
8. Rowe CR, Zarins B. Recurrent transient subluxation of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(6):863-872.
9. Stokes DA, Savoie FH, Field LD. Arthroscopic repair of anterior glenohumeral instability and rotator interval lesions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(4):529-539.
10. Taverna E, Sansone V, Battistella F. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair: the three-step all-inside technique. Arthroscopy. 2004;20 Suppl 2:105-109.
11. Treacy SH, Field LD, Savoie FH. Rotator interval capsule closure: an arthroscopic technique. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(1):103-106.
12. Field LD, Warren RF, O’Brien SJ, Altcheck DW, Wickiewicz TL. Isolated closure of rotator interval defects for shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(5):557-563.
13. Harryman DT 2nd, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Matsen FA 3rd. The role of the rotator interval capsule in passive motion and stability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(1):53-66.
14. Jost B, Koch PP, Gerber C. Anatomy and functional aspects of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(4):336-341.
15. Plausinis D, Bravman JT, Heywood C, Kummer FJ, Kwon YM, Jazrawi LM. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure: effect of sutures on glenohumeral motion and anterior-posterior translation. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1656-1661.
16. Provencher MT, Mologne TS, Hongo M, Zhao K, Tasto JP, An KN. Arthroscopic versus open rotator interval closure: biomechanical evaluation of stability and motion. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):583-592.
17. Selecky MT, Tibone JE, Yang BY, et al. Glenohumeral joint translation after thermal capsuloplasty of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):139-143.
18. Wolf R, Zheng N, Iero J, Weichel D. The effects of thermal capsulorrhaphy and rotator interval closure on multidirectional laxity in the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(10):1044-1049.
19. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. Effect of rotator interval closure on glenohumeral stability and motion: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(6):750-758.
20. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. The effect of the inferior capsular shift on shoulder intra-articular pressure: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):939-944.
21. Cole BJ, Rodeo SA, O’Brien SJ, et al. The anatomy and histology of the rotator interval capsule of the shoulder. Clin Orthop. 2001;(390):129-137.
22. Lee HJ, Kim NR, Moon SG, Ko SM, Park JY. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: rotator interval dimension and capsular laxity evaluation using MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(2):231-238.
23. Warner JP, Deng X, Warren RF, Torzilli PA, O’Brien SJ. Superoinferior translation in intact and vented glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(2):99-105.
24. Chechik O, Maman E, Dolkart O, Khashan M, Shabtai L, Mozes G. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure in shoulder instability repair: a retrospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1056-1062.
25. Chiang, E, Wang J, Wang S, et al. Arthroscopic posteroinferior capsular plication and rotator interval closure after Bankart repair in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability—a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Injury. 2010;41(10):1075-1078.
26. Karas SG, Creighton RA, DeMorat GJ. Glenohumeral volume reduction in arthroscopic shoulder reconstruction: a cadaveric analysis of suture plication and thermal capsulorrhaphy. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(2):179-184.
27. Miller MD, Larsen KM, Luke T, Leis HT, Plancher KD. Anterior capsular shift volume reduction: an in vitro comparison of 3 techniques. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(4):350-354.
28. Luke TA, Rovner AD, Karas SG, Hawkins RJ, Plancher KD. Volumetric change in the shoulder capsule after open inferior capsular shift versus arthroscopic thermal capsular shrinkage: a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(2):146-149.
29. Ponce BA, Rosenzweig SD, Thompson KJ, Tokish J. Sequential volume reduction with capsular plications: relationship between cumulative size of plications and volumetric reduction for multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):526-531.
30. Lubowitz J, Bartolozzi A, Rubenstein D, et al. How much does inferior capsular shift reduce shoulder volume? Clin Orthop. 1996;(328):86-90.
31. Moon YL, Singh H, Yang H, Chul LK. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure by purse string suture for symptomatic inferior shoulder instability. Orthopedics. 2011;34(4).
32. Jerosch J, Castro WH. Shoulder instability in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: an indication for surgical treatment? Acta Orthop Belg. 1990;56(2):451-453.
33. Schenk TJ, Brems JJ. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(1):65-72.
34. Cohen SB, Wiley W, Goradia VK, Pearson S, Miller MD. Anterior capsulorrhaphy: an in vitro comparison of volume reduction. Arthroscopic plication versus open capsular shift. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):659-664.
1. Creighton RA, Romeo AA, Brown FM, Hayden JK, Verma NN. Revision arthroscopic shoulder instability repair. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(7):703-709.
2. Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic treatment of anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability. Two to five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(7):991-1003.
3. Gartsman GM, Taverna E, Hammerman SM. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair in glenohumeral instability: description of an operative technique. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(3):330-332.
4. Neer CS 2nd, Foster CR. Inferior capsular shift for involuntary inferior and multidirectional instability of the shoulder: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(6):897-908.
5. Neer CS 2nd. Displaced proximal humerus fractures: I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077-1089.
6. Nobuhara K, Ikeda H. Rotator interval lesion. Clin Orthop. 1987;(223):44-50.
7. Rowe CR, Zarins B, Ciullo JV. Recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder after surgical repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):159-168.
8. Rowe CR, Zarins B. Recurrent transient subluxation of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(6):863-872.
9. Stokes DA, Savoie FH, Field LD. Arthroscopic repair of anterior glenohumeral instability and rotator interval lesions. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34(4):529-539.
10. Taverna E, Sansone V, Battistella F. Arthroscopic rotator interval repair: the three-step all-inside technique. Arthroscopy. 2004;20 Suppl 2:105-109.
11. Treacy SH, Field LD, Savoie FH. Rotator interval capsule closure: an arthroscopic technique. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(1):103-106.
12. Field LD, Warren RF, O’Brien SJ, Altcheck DW, Wickiewicz TL. Isolated closure of rotator interval defects for shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(5):557-563.
13. Harryman DT 2nd, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Matsen FA 3rd. The role of the rotator interval capsule in passive motion and stability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(1):53-66.
14. Jost B, Koch PP, Gerber C. Anatomy and functional aspects of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(4):336-341.
15. Plausinis D, Bravman JT, Heywood C, Kummer FJ, Kwon YM, Jazrawi LM. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure: effect of sutures on glenohumeral motion and anterior-posterior translation. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1656-1661.
16. Provencher MT, Mologne TS, Hongo M, Zhao K, Tasto JP, An KN. Arthroscopic versus open rotator interval closure: biomechanical evaluation of stability and motion. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):583-592.
17. Selecky MT, Tibone JE, Yang BY, et al. Glenohumeral joint translation after thermal capsuloplasty of the rotator interval. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):139-143.
18. Wolf R, Zheng N, Iero J, Weichel D. The effects of thermal capsulorrhaphy and rotator interval closure on multidirectional laxity in the glenohumeral joint: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(10):1044-1049.
19. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. Effect of rotator interval closure on glenohumeral stability and motion: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(6):750-758.
20. Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Tuoheti Y, et al. The effect of the inferior capsular shift on shoulder intra-articular pressure: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):939-944.
21. Cole BJ, Rodeo SA, O’Brien SJ, et al. The anatomy and histology of the rotator interval capsule of the shoulder. Clin Orthop. 2001;(390):129-137.
22. Lee HJ, Kim NR, Moon SG, Ko SM, Park JY. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: rotator interval dimension and capsular laxity evaluation using MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 2013;42(2):231-238.
23. Warner JP, Deng X, Warren RF, Torzilli PA, O’Brien SJ. Superoinferior translation in intact and vented glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(2):99-105.
24. Chechik O, Maman E, Dolkart O, Khashan M, Shabtai L, Mozes G. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure in shoulder instability repair: a retrospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1056-1062.
25. Chiang, E, Wang J, Wang S, et al. Arthroscopic posteroinferior capsular plication and rotator interval closure after Bankart repair in patients with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability—a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Injury. 2010;41(10):1075-1078.
26. Karas SG, Creighton RA, DeMorat GJ. Glenohumeral volume reduction in arthroscopic shoulder reconstruction: a cadaveric analysis of suture plication and thermal capsulorrhaphy. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(2):179-184.
27. Miller MD, Larsen KM, Luke T, Leis HT, Plancher KD. Anterior capsular shift volume reduction: an in vitro comparison of 3 techniques. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(4):350-354.
28. Luke TA, Rovner AD, Karas SG, Hawkins RJ, Plancher KD. Volumetric change in the shoulder capsule after open inferior capsular shift versus arthroscopic thermal capsular shrinkage: a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(2):146-149.
29. Ponce BA, Rosenzweig SD, Thompson KJ, Tokish J. Sequential volume reduction with capsular plications: relationship between cumulative size of plications and volumetric reduction for multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):526-531.
30. Lubowitz J, Bartolozzi A, Rubenstein D, et al. How much does inferior capsular shift reduce shoulder volume? Clin Orthop. 1996;(328):86-90.
31. Moon YL, Singh H, Yang H, Chul LK. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure by purse string suture for symptomatic inferior shoulder instability. Orthopedics. 2011;34(4).
32. Jerosch J, Castro WH. Shoulder instability in Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: an indication for surgical treatment? Acta Orthop Belg. 1990;56(2):451-453.
33. Schenk TJ, Brems JJ. Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(1):65-72.
34. Cohen SB, Wiley W, Goradia VK, Pearson S, Miller MD. Anterior capsulorrhaphy: an in vitro comparison of volume reduction. Arthroscopic plication versus open capsular shift. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):659-664.
