Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair using All-Suture Anchor and Metal Anchor.

IF 0.6 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
V Jain, H Gupta, N Mehta, D Joshi, H Kataria
{"title":"Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair using All-Suture Anchor and Metal Anchor.","authors":"V Jain, H Gupta, N Mehta, D Joshi, H Kataria","doi":"10.5704/MOJ.2403.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Both knotted all suture anchors and metal anchors are used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. We retrospectively evaluated and compared clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the knotted all-suture anchors and knotted metal anchors.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair without any concomitant additional lesion repair using either all-suture anchors or metal anchors, between January 2015 and May 2018 were identified. Their pre- and post-operative functional and clinical outcomes were compared using Rowe and WOSI scores. The recurrence rate in the two groups was also compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 41 patients in all suture anchors group and 47 in the metal anchors group were identified as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic profile of both groups was comparable. There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two suture anchor groups as per Rowe (pre-operative 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24 and post-operative 2 years 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2) and WOSI (pre-operative 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46 and post-operative 2 years 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25) scores. There was a significant improvement in both the groups between preoperative and post-operative ROWE and WOSI scores at 6 months and 2 years follow-up as compared to pre-operative scores (p<0.001). Re-dislocation rates were also comparable (4.8% vs 6.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All-suture anchors showed comparable clinical and functional results as the metal anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair at two-year follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":45241,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11023345/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2403.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Both knotted all suture anchors and metal anchors are used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. We retrospectively evaluated and compared clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the knotted all-suture anchors and knotted metal anchors.

Materials and methods: In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair without any concomitant additional lesion repair using either all-suture anchors or metal anchors, between January 2015 and May 2018 were identified. Their pre- and post-operative functional and clinical outcomes were compared using Rowe and WOSI scores. The recurrence rate in the two groups was also compared.

Results: A total of 41 patients in all suture anchors group and 47 in the metal anchors group were identified as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic profile of both groups was comparable. There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two suture anchor groups as per Rowe (pre-operative 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24 and post-operative 2 years 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2) and WOSI (pre-operative 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46 and post-operative 2 years 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25) scores. There was a significant improvement in both the groups between preoperative and post-operative ROWE and WOSI scores at 6 months and 2 years follow-up as compared to pre-operative scores (p<0.001). Re-dislocation rates were also comparable (4.8% vs 6.3%).

Conclusion: All-suture anchors showed comparable clinical and functional results as the metal anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair at two-year follow-up.

使用全缝合锚和金属锚进行关节镜下 Bankart 修复术后临床和功能效果的回顾性比较分析。
导言:打结全缝合锚和金属锚都可用于关节镜下 Bankart 修复术。我们对使用打结全缝合锚和打结金属锚进行关节镜下 Bankart 修复术后的临床和功能结果进行了回顾性评估和比较:在一项回顾性队列分析中,我们确定了在 2015 年 1 月至 2018 年 5 月期间接受关节镜下 Bankart 修复术且未同时使用全缝合锚或金属锚进行额外病变修复的患者。使用 Rowe 和 WOSI 评分比较了他们术前和术后的功能和临床结果。同时还比较了两组患者的复发率:根据纳入和排除标准,所有缝合锚组共有 41 名患者,金属锚组共有 47 名患者。两组患者的人口统计学特征相当。根据 Rowe(术前 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24,术后 2 年 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2)和 WOSI(术前 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46,术后 2 年 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25)评分,两组缝合锚的临床和功能结果无明显差异。与术前评分相比,两组患者术前和术后 6 个月和 2 年随访时的 ROWE 和 WOSI 评分均有明显改善(p 结论:在两年的随访中,全缝合锚与金属锚在关节镜下 Bankart 修复术的临床和功能效果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers and case reports three times a year in both printed and electronic version. The purpose of MOJ is to disseminate new knowledge and provide updates in Orthopaedics, trauma and musculoskeletal research. It is an Open Access journal that does not require processing fee or article processing charge from the authors. The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is the official journal of Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA) and ASEAN Orthopaedic Association (AOA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信