Cargando…
Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgica...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8114265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211001809 |
_version_ | 1783691026167234560 |
---|---|
author | Calvo, Emilio Luengo, Gonzalo Morcillo, Diana Foruria, Antonio M. Valencia, María |
author_facet | Calvo, Emilio Luengo, Gonzalo Morcillo, Diana Foruria, Antonio M. Valencia, María |
author_sort | Calvo, Emilio |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8114265 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81142652021-05-19 Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss Calvo, Emilio Luengo, Gonzalo Morcillo, Diana Foruria, Antonio M. Valencia, María Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair. SAGE Publications 2021-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8114265/ /pubmed/34017877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211001809 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Article Calvo, Emilio Luengo, Gonzalo Morcillo, Diana Foruria, Antonio M. Valencia, María Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title | Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title_full | Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title_fullStr | Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title_full_unstemmed | Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title_short | Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss |
title_sort | revision arthroscopic bankart repair versus arthroscopic latarjet for failed primary arthroscopic stabilization with subcritical bone loss |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8114265/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34017877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211001809 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT calvoemilio revisionarthroscopicbankartrepairversusarthroscopiclatarjetforfailedprimaryarthroscopicstabilizationwithsubcriticalboneloss AT luengogonzalo revisionarthroscopicbankartrepairversusarthroscopiclatarjetforfailedprimaryarthroscopicstabilizationwithsubcriticalboneloss AT morcillodiana revisionarthroscopicbankartrepairversusarthroscopiclatarjetforfailedprimaryarthroscopicstabilizationwithsubcriticalboneloss AT foruriaantoniom revisionarthroscopicbankartrepairversusarthroscopiclatarjetforfailedprimaryarthroscopicstabilizationwithsubcriticalboneloss AT valenciamaria revisionarthroscopicbankartrepairversusarthroscopiclatarjetforfailedprimaryarthroscopicstabilizationwithsubcriticalboneloss |