Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Arthroscopy-Assisted Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Glenoid Fracture
I-Hao Lin1, Tsung-Li Lin1,2,3, Hao-Wei Chang1
1Department of Orthopedics, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40447, Taiwan.
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.
