关节镜下Bankart修复中的全缝线锚架部署配置:临床和放射学结果的比较分析。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-03 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671251319533
Jae-Hoo Lee, Sang-Jin Shin
{"title":"关节镜下Bankart修复中的全缝线锚架部署配置:临床和放射学结果的比较分析。","authors":"Jae-Hoo Lee, Sang-Jin Shin","doi":"10.1177/23259671251319533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>All-suture anchors have various configurations during deployment and different biomechanical characteristics because of their soft anchor bodies.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis/purpose: </strong>This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiological differences of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair based on their deployment configurations. It was hypothesized that each all-suture anchor would yield comparable clinical outcomes regardless of radiological differences in the pattern of glenoid bone reaction.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 141 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors were enrolled. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the configurations after deployment of the all-suture anchors used: (1) group A (38 patients)-1.3-mm all-suture anchor with a <i>spherical</i> configuration; (2) group B (25 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a <i>cloverleaf</i> configuration; (3) group C (31 patients)-1.7-mm anchor with an <i>omega</i> configuration; and (4) group D (47 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a <i>cylindrical</i> configuration. Clinical outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The labral healing and the diameter and length of the anchor tunnel were measured on the postoperative 1-year computed tomography arthrograms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was observed in the preoperative demographic data of the 4 groups. The all-suture anchor tunnel's mean diameter in group A (3.9 ± 0.4 mm) was significantly larger than that of groups B (3.3 ± 0.3 mm), C (3.7 ± 0.4 mm), and D (2 ± 0.3 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). The tunnel's length in group D (8.7 ± 1.8 mm) was significantly longer than that of groups A (4 ± 0.4 mm), B (3.3 ± 0.5 mm), and C (3.7 ± 0.6 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). In radiological analysis, the diameter of the suture anchors was larger in the inferior region (3.3 ± 1.3 mm) compared with the superior region (2.9 ± 1 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). No significant differences were found in terms of the postoperative functional outcomes and healing rates among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produced different tunnel diameters and lengths. In addition, the diameter of the tunnel was more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid compared with the superior region. Despite this, the deployment configurations and radiological characteristics of the all-suture anchors did not affect the clinical outcomes or occurrence of postoperative complications after Bankart repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 3","pages":"23259671251319533"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All-Suture Anchor Deployment Configurations in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Jae-Hoo Lee, Sang-Jin Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23259671251319533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>All-suture anchors have various configurations during deployment and different biomechanical characteristics because of their soft anchor bodies.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis/purpose: </strong>This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiological differences of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair based on their deployment configurations. It was hypothesized that each all-suture anchor would yield comparable clinical outcomes regardless of radiological differences in the pattern of glenoid bone reaction.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 141 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors were enrolled. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the configurations after deployment of the all-suture anchors used: (1) group A (38 patients)-1.3-mm all-suture anchor with a <i>spherical</i> configuration; (2) group B (25 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a <i>cloverleaf</i> configuration; (3) group C (31 patients)-1.7-mm anchor with an <i>omega</i> configuration; and (4) group D (47 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a <i>cylindrical</i> configuration. Clinical outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The labral healing and the diameter and length of the anchor tunnel were measured on the postoperative 1-year computed tomography arthrograms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference was observed in the preoperative demographic data of the 4 groups. The all-suture anchor tunnel's mean diameter in group A (3.9 ± 0.4 mm) was significantly larger than that of groups B (3.3 ± 0.3 mm), C (3.7 ± 0.4 mm), and D (2 ± 0.3 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). The tunnel's length in group D (8.7 ± 1.8 mm) was significantly longer than that of groups A (4 ± 0.4 mm), B (3.3 ± 0.5 mm), and C (3.7 ± 0.6 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). In radiological analysis, the diameter of the suture anchors was larger in the inferior region (3.3 ± 1.3 mm) compared with the superior region (2.9 ± 1 mm; <i>P</i> < .01). No significant differences were found in terms of the postoperative functional outcomes and healing rates among the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produced different tunnel diameters and lengths. In addition, the diameter of the tunnel was more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid compared with the superior region. Despite this, the deployment configurations and radiological characteristics of the all-suture anchors did not affect the clinical outcomes or occurrence of postoperative complications after Bankart repair.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"23259671251319533\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671251319533\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671251319533","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全缝线锚钉由于其软锚体,在部署过程中具有不同的构型和不同的生物力学特性。假设/目的:本研究旨在分析全缝线锚钉在关节镜下Bankart修复中的临床和影像学差异。假设无论肩胛骨反应模式的放射学差异如何,每种全缝合锚都能产生相似的临床结果。研究设计:队列研究,证据水平,3级。方法:共纳入141例采用全缝线锚钉进行关节镜下Bankart修复的患者。根据使用的全缝线锚钉部署后的构型将患者分为4组:(1)A组(38例)-1.3 mm球形全缝线锚钉;(2) B组(25例)-1.4 mm三叶草形锚;(3) C组(31例)-1.7 mm锚具omega配置;(4) D组(47例)-1.4 mm圆柱形锚。评估术前和术后2年的临床结果。术后1年计算机断层关节图测量唇唇愈合和锚管隧道的直径和长度。结果:4组患者术前人口学资料差异无统计学意义。A组全缝线锚钉隧道平均直径(3.9±0.4 mm)明显大于B组(3.3±0.3 mm)、C组(3.7±0.4 mm)、D组(2±0.3 mm);P < 0.01)。D组隧道长度(8.7±1.8 mm)明显长于A组(4±0.4 mm)、B组(3.3±0.5 mm)、C组(3.7±0.6 mm);P < 0.01)。放射学分析显示,下区缝线锚钉直径(3.3±1.3 mm)大于上区缝线锚钉直径(2.9±1 mm);P < 0.01)。两组术后功能预后和治愈率无显著差异。结论:不同部署方式的全缝线锚钉会产生不同的隧道直径和长度。此外,隧道直径在前盂下区域比上区域更明显。尽管如此,全缝线锚钉的部署配置和放射学特征并未影响Bankart修复后的临床结果或术后并发症的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
All-Suture Anchor Deployment Configurations in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

Background: All-suture anchors have various configurations during deployment and different biomechanical characteristics because of their soft anchor bodies.

Hypothesis/purpose: This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiological differences of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair based on their deployment configurations. It was hypothesized that each all-suture anchor would yield comparable clinical outcomes regardless of radiological differences in the pattern of glenoid bone reaction.

Study design: Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: A total of 141 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors were enrolled. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the configurations after deployment of the all-suture anchors used: (1) group A (38 patients)-1.3-mm all-suture anchor with a spherical configuration; (2) group B (25 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a cloverleaf configuration; (3) group C (31 patients)-1.7-mm anchor with an omega configuration; and (4) group D (47 patients)-1.4-mm anchor with a cylindrical configuration. Clinical outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The labral healing and the diameter and length of the anchor tunnel were measured on the postoperative 1-year computed tomography arthrograms.

Results: No significant difference was observed in the preoperative demographic data of the 4 groups. The all-suture anchor tunnel's mean diameter in group A (3.9 ± 0.4 mm) was significantly larger than that of groups B (3.3 ± 0.3 mm), C (3.7 ± 0.4 mm), and D (2 ± 0.3 mm; P < .01). The tunnel's length in group D (8.7 ± 1.8 mm) was significantly longer than that of groups A (4 ± 0.4 mm), B (3.3 ± 0.5 mm), and C (3.7 ± 0.6 mm; P < .01). In radiological analysis, the diameter of the suture anchors was larger in the inferior region (3.3 ± 1.3 mm) compared with the superior region (2.9 ± 1 mm; P < .01). No significant differences were found in terms of the postoperative functional outcomes and healing rates among the groups.

Conclusions: All-suture anchors with various deployment configurations produced different tunnel diameters and lengths. In addition, the diameter of the tunnel was more pronounced at the inferior region of the anterior glenoid compared with the superior region. Despite this, the deployment configurations and radiological characteristics of the all-suture anchors did not affect the clinical outcomes or occurrence of postoperative complications after Bankart repair.

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
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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