关节镜稳定术治疗复发性失稳的效果与原发性失稳后的稳定效果相同。

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Jawaad Saleem, Ben Rawi, Magnus Arnander, Eyiyemi Pearse, Duncan Tennent
{"title":"关节镜稳定术治疗复发性失稳的效果与原发性失稳后的稳定效果相同。","authors":"Jawaad Saleem, Ben Rawi, Magnus Arnander, Eyiyemi Pearse, Duncan Tennent","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0396.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Extensive literature exists relating to the management of shoulder instability, with a more recent focus on glenoid and humeral bone loss. However, the optimal timing for surgery following a dislocation remains unclear. There is concern that recurrent dislocations may worsen subsequent surgical outcomes, with some advocating stabilization after the first dislocation. The aim of this study was to determine if the recurrence of instability following arthroscopic stabilization in patients without significant glenoid bone loss was influenced by the number of dislocations prior to surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, Orthosearch, and Cochrane databases with the following search terms: ((shoulder or glenohumeral) and (dislocation or subluxation) and arthroscopic and (Bankart or stabilisation or stabilization) and (redislocation or re-dislocation or recurrence or instability)). Methodology followed the PRISMA guidelines. Data and outcomes were synthesized by two independent reviewers, and papers were assessed for bias and quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 35 studies including 7,995 shoulders were eligible for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 32.7 months (12 to 159.5). The rate of post-stabilization instability was 9.8% in first-time dislocators, 9.1% in recurrent dislocators, and 8.5% in a mixed cohort. A descriptive analysis investigated the influence of recurrent instability or age in the risk of instability post-stabilization, with an association seen with increasing age and a reduced risk of recurrence post-stabilization.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using modern arthroscopic techniques, patients sustaining an anterior shoulder dislocation without glenoid bone loss can expect a low risk of recurrence postoperatively, and no significant difference was found between first-time and recurrent dislocators. Furthermore, high-risk cohorts can expect a low, albeit slightly higher, rate of redislocation. With the findings of this study, patients and clinicians can be more informed as to the likely outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization within this patient subset.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent instability are equal to stabilization after a primary event.\",\"authors\":\"Jawaad Saleem, Ben Rawi, Magnus Arnander, Eyiyemi Pearse, Duncan Tennent\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0396.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Extensive literature exists relating to the management of shoulder instability, with a more recent focus on glenoid and humeral bone loss. However, the optimal timing for surgery following a dislocation remains unclear. There is concern that recurrent dislocations may worsen subsequent surgical outcomes, with some advocating stabilization after the first dislocation. The aim of this study was to determine if the recurrence of instability following arthroscopic stabilization in patients without significant glenoid bone loss was influenced by the number of dislocations prior to surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, Orthosearch, and Cochrane databases with the following search terms: ((shoulder or glenohumeral) and (dislocation or subluxation) and arthroscopic and (Bankart or stabilisation or stabilization) and (redislocation or re-dislocation or recurrence or instability)). Methodology followed the PRISMA guidelines. Data and outcomes were synthesized by two independent reviewers, and papers were assessed for bias and quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 35 studies including 7,995 shoulders were eligible for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 32.7 months (12 to 159.5). The rate of post-stabilization instability was 9.8% in first-time dislocators, 9.1% in recurrent dislocators, and 8.5% in a mixed cohort. A descriptive analysis investigated the influence of recurrent instability or age in the risk of instability post-stabilization, with an association seen with increasing age and a reduced risk of recurrence post-stabilization.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using modern arthroscopic techniques, patients sustaining an anterior shoulder dislocation without glenoid bone loss can expect a low risk of recurrence postoperatively, and no significant difference was found between first-time and recurrent dislocators. Furthermore, high-risk cohorts can expect a low, albeit slightly higher, rate of redislocation. With the findings of this study, patients and clinicians can be more informed as to the likely outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization within this patient subset.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0396.R1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.106B10.BJJ-2024-0396.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前已有大量关于肩关节不稳定治疗的文献,最近的研究重点是盂骨和肱骨骨质流失。然而,脱位后的最佳手术时机仍不明确。有人担心复发性脱位可能会恶化后续的手术效果,有些人主张在首次脱位后进行稳定治疗。本研究旨在确定无明显盂骨缺损的患者在关节镜下稳定后的不稳定复发率是否受术前脱位次数的影响:利用PubMed、EMBASE、Orthosearch和Cochrane数据库进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,检索词如下:((肩关节或盂肱关节)和(脱位或半脱位)和关节镜和(Bankart或稳定或稳定)和(再脱位或再脱位或复发或不稳定))。研究方法遵循 PRISMA 指南。数据和结果由两名独立审稿人进行综合,并对论文的偏倚性和质量进行评估:共有 35 项研究(包括 7995 个肩关节)符合分析条件,平均随访时间为 32.7 个月(12 至 159.5 个月)。首次脱位者稳定后不稳定的比例为9.8%,复发性脱位者为9.1%,混合队列为8.5%。一项描述性分析调查了复发性脱位或年龄对稳定后脱位风险的影响,结果显示年龄越大,稳定后复发的风险越低:结论:使用现代关节镜技术,无盂骨缺损的肩关节前脱位患者术后复发风险较低,首次脱位者和复发脱位者之间无明显差异。此外,高风险人群的再脱位率也较低,尽管略高。有了这项研究结果,患者和临床医生就能更清楚地了解关节镜稳定术在这一患者亚群中可能产生的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent instability are equal to stabilization after a primary event.

Aims: Extensive literature exists relating to the management of shoulder instability, with a more recent focus on glenoid and humeral bone loss. However, the optimal timing for surgery following a dislocation remains unclear. There is concern that recurrent dislocations may worsen subsequent surgical outcomes, with some advocating stabilization after the first dislocation. The aim of this study was to determine if the recurrence of instability following arthroscopic stabilization in patients without significant glenoid bone loss was influenced by the number of dislocations prior to surgery.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, Orthosearch, and Cochrane databases with the following search terms: ((shoulder or glenohumeral) and (dislocation or subluxation) and arthroscopic and (Bankart or stabilisation or stabilization) and (redislocation or re-dislocation or recurrence or instability)). Methodology followed the PRISMA guidelines. Data and outcomes were synthesized by two independent reviewers, and papers were assessed for bias and quality.

Results: Overall, 35 studies including 7,995 shoulders were eligible for analysis, with a mean follow-up of 32.7 months (12 to 159.5). The rate of post-stabilization instability was 9.8% in first-time dislocators, 9.1% in recurrent dislocators, and 8.5% in a mixed cohort. A descriptive analysis investigated the influence of recurrent instability or age in the risk of instability post-stabilization, with an association seen with increasing age and a reduced risk of recurrence post-stabilization.

Conclusion: Using modern arthroscopic techniques, patients sustaining an anterior shoulder dislocation without glenoid bone loss can expect a low risk of recurrence postoperatively, and no significant difference was found between first-time and recurrent dislocators. Furthermore, high-risk cohorts can expect a low, albeit slightly higher, rate of redislocation. With the findings of this study, patients and clinicians can be more informed as to the likely outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization within this patient subset.

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
Bone & Joint Journal
Bone & Joint Journal ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.90%
发文量
318
期刊介绍: We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.
×
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