关节镜下Bankart修复加再植术与开放式Latarjet术在盂骨亚临界缺失情况下的初次和翻修稳定效果相似。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.003
Shaquille J-C Charles, Stephen Marcaccio, Zachary J Herman, Fritz Steuer, Rajiv P Reddy, Gillian Kane, Sophia McMahon, Matthew Como, Albert Lin
{"title":"关节镜下Bankart修复加再植术与开放式Latarjet术在盂骨亚临界缺失情况下的初次和翻修稳定效果相似。","authors":"Shaquille J-C Charles, Stephen Marcaccio, Zachary J Herman, Fritz Steuer, Rajiv P Reddy, Gillian Kane, Sophia McMahon, Matthew Como, Albert Lin","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Management of patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL), defined in this study as 20% GBL or less, remains controversial. This study aimed to compare arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (ABR + R) to open Latarjet for subcritical GBL in primary or revision procedures. We hypothesized that ABR + R would yield higher rates of recurrent instability and reoperation compared to Latarjet in both primary and revision settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing either arthroscopic ABR + R or an open Latarjet procedure. Patients with connective tissue disorders, critical GBL (>20%), <2 year follow-up, or insufficient data were excluded. Recurrent instability and revision were the primary outcomes of interest. Additional outcomes of interest included subjective shoulder value, strength, and range of motion (ROM) RESULTS: One hundred eight patients (70 ABR + R, 38 Latarjet) were included with an average follow-up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. In the primary and revision settings, similar rates of recurrent instability (Primary: P = .60; Revision: P = .28) and reoperation (Primary: P = .06; Revision: P = 1.00) were observed between Latarjet and ABR + R. Primary ABR + R exhibited better subjective shoulder value, active ROM, and internal rotation strength compared to primary open Latarjet. However, no differences were observed in the revision setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Similar rates of recurrent instability and reoperation in addition to comparable outcomes with no differences in ROM were found for ABR + R and Latarjet in patients with subcritical GBL in both the primary and revision settings. ABR + R can be a safe and effective procedure in appropriately selected patients with less than 20% GBL for both primary and revision stabilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage yields similar outcomes to open Latarjet for primary and revision stabilization in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss.\",\"authors\":\"Shaquille J-C Charles, Stephen Marcaccio, Zachary J Herman, Fritz Steuer, Rajiv P Reddy, Gillian Kane, Sophia McMahon, Matthew Como, Albert Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Management of patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL), defined in this study as 20% GBL or less, remains controversial. This study aimed to compare arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (ABR + R) to open Latarjet for subcritical GBL in primary or revision procedures. We hypothesized that ABR + R would yield higher rates of recurrent instability and reoperation compared to Latarjet in both primary and revision settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing either arthroscopic ABR + R or an open Latarjet procedure. Patients with connective tissue disorders, critical GBL (>20%), <2 year follow-up, or insufficient data were excluded. Recurrent instability and revision were the primary outcomes of interest. Additional outcomes of interest included subjective shoulder value, strength, and range of motion (ROM) RESULTS: One hundred eight patients (70 ABR + R, 38 Latarjet) were included with an average follow-up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. In the primary and revision settings, similar rates of recurrent instability (Primary: P = .60; Revision: P = .28) and reoperation (Primary: P = .06; Revision: P = 1.00) were observed between Latarjet and ABR + R. Primary ABR + R exhibited better subjective shoulder value, active ROM, and internal rotation strength compared to primary open Latarjet. However, no differences were observed in the revision setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Similar rates of recurrent instability and reoperation in addition to comparable outcomes with no differences in ROM were found for ABR + R and Latarjet in patients with subcritical GBL in both the primary and revision settings. ABR + R can be a safe and effective procedure in appropriately selected patients with less than 20% GBL for both primary and revision stabilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.003\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究将亚临界盂骨缺损(GBL)定义为 20% 或更少 GBL,对于亚临界盂骨缺损情况下复发性前盂肱骨不稳定患者的治疗仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较关节镜下Bankart+remplissage(ABR+R)与开放式Latarjet治疗亚临界GBL的初治或翻修手术。我们假设,在初次手术和翻修手术中,ABR+R与Latarjet相比会产生更高的复发性不稳定性和再次手术率:我们对接受关节镜 ABR+R 或开放式 Latarjet 手术的患者进行了一项回顾性研究。排除了患有结缔组织疾病、严重GBL(>20%)、随访时间少于2年或数据不足的患者。复发性不稳定和翻修是主要关注结果。其他相关结果包括主观肩关节值(SSV)、力量和活动范围(ROM 结果:108 名患者(70 名 ABR+R,38 名 Latarjet)接受了手术,平均随访时间为 4.3±2.1 年。在初治和翻修治疗中,Latarjet 和 ABR+R 的复发不稳定性(初治:P=0.60;翻修:P=0.28)和再次手术率(初治:P=0.06;翻修:P=1.00)相似。与初治开放式Latarjet相比,初治ABR+R显示出更好的SSV、主动ROM和内旋力量。然而,在翻修手术中未观察到差异:结论:对于亚临界GBL患者,ABR+R和Latarjet在初次手术和翻修手术中的复发不稳定性和再次手术率相似,治疗效果相当,ROM无差异。对于适当选择的 GBL 低于 20% 的患者,ABR+R 是一种安全有效的初次和翻修稳定手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage yields similar outcomes to open Latarjet for primary and revision stabilization in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss.

Background: Management of patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL), defined in this study as 20% GBL or less, remains controversial. This study aimed to compare arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (ABR + R) to open Latarjet for subcritical GBL in primary or revision procedures. We hypothesized that ABR + R would yield higher rates of recurrent instability and reoperation compared to Latarjet in both primary and revision settings.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing either arthroscopic ABR + R or an open Latarjet procedure. Patients with connective tissue disorders, critical GBL (>20%), <2 year follow-up, or insufficient data were excluded. Recurrent instability and revision were the primary outcomes of interest. Additional outcomes of interest included subjective shoulder value, strength, and range of motion (ROM) RESULTS: One hundred eight patients (70 ABR + R, 38 Latarjet) were included with an average follow-up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. In the primary and revision settings, similar rates of recurrent instability (Primary: P = .60; Revision: P = .28) and reoperation (Primary: P = .06; Revision: P = 1.00) were observed between Latarjet and ABR + R. Primary ABR + R exhibited better subjective shoulder value, active ROM, and internal rotation strength compared to primary open Latarjet. However, no differences were observed in the revision setting.

Conclusion: Similar rates of recurrent instability and reoperation in addition to comparable outcomes with no differences in ROM were found for ABR + R and Latarjet in patients with subcritical GBL in both the primary and revision settings. ABR + R can be a safe and effective procedure in appropriately selected patients with less than 20% GBL for both primary and revision stabilization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
×
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