scholarly journals A Clinical Comparison of Home-Based and Hospital-Based Exercise Programs Following Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 777-782
Author(s):  
İlker Eren ◽  
Nazan Canbulat ◽  
Ata Can Atalar ◽  
Şule Meral Eren ◽  
Ayla Uçak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Rehabilitation Programs ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Significant Difference

Context: Ideal rehabilitation method following arthroscopic capsulolabral repair surgery for anterior shoulder instability has not been proven yet. Although rapid or slow protocols were compared previously, home- or hospital-based protocols were not questioned before. Objective: The aim of this prospective unrandomized controlled clinical trial is to compare the clinical outcomes of home-based and hospital-based rehabilitation programs following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Design: Nonrandomized controlled trial. Setting: Orthopedics and physical therapy units of a single institution. Patients: Fifty-four patients (49 males and 5 females) with an average age of 30.5 (9.1) years, who underwent arthroscopic capsulolabral repair and met the inclusion criteria, with at least 1-year follow-up were allocated into 2 groups: home-based (n = 33) and hospital-based (n = 21) groups. Interventions: Both groups received identical rehabilitation programs. Patients in the home-based group were called for follow-up every 3 weeks. Patients in the hospital-based group admitted for therapy every other day for a total of 6 to 8 weeks. Both groups were followed identically after the eighth week and the rehabilitation program continued for 6 months. Main Outcome Measures: Clinical outcomes were assessed using Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand, Constant, and Rowe scores. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the results in both groups. Wilcoxon test was used for determining the progress in each group. Results: Groups were age and gender matched (P = .61, P = .69). Average number of treatment sessions was 13.8 (7.3) for patients in the hospital-based group. Preoperative Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand (27.46 [11.81] vs 32.53 [16.42], P = .22), Constant (58.23 [14.23] vs 54.17 [10.46], P = .13), and Rowe (51.72 [15.36] vs 43.81 [19.16], P = .12) scores were similar between groups. Postoperative scores at sixth month were significantly improved in each group (P = .001, P = .001, and P = .001). No significant difference was observed between 2 groups regarding clinical scores in any time point. Conclusions: We have, therefore, concluded that a controlled home-based exercise program is as effective as hospital-based rehabilitation following arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for anterior shoulder instability.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596712110598
Author(s):  
Young Dae Jeon ◽  
Hyong Suk Kim ◽  
Sung-Min Rhee ◽  
Myeong Gon Jeong ◽  
Joo Han Oh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Bone Defect ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Primary Groups

Background: The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results. Purpose: To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery. Results: The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003). Conclusion: In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Shoulder Stabilization in Females With Glenoid Bone Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110075
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Frank ◽  
Hytham S. Salem ◽  
Catherine Richardson ◽  
Michael O’Brien ◽  
Jon M. Newgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Simple Shoulder Test ◽  
Female Patients

Background: Nearly all studies describing shoulder stabilization focus on male patients. Little is known regarding the clinical outcomes of female patients undergoing shoulder stabilization, and even less is understood about females with glenoid bone loss. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes of female patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All cases of female patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with ≥15% anterior glenoid bone loss and underwent the Latarjet procedure were analyzed. Patients were evaluated after a minimum 2-year postoperative period with scores of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale. Results: Of the 22 patients who met our criteria, 5 (22.7%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 17 (77.2%) available for follow-up with a mean ± SD age of 31.7 ± 12.9 years. Among these patients, 16 (94.1%) underwent 1.6 ± 0.73 ipsilateral shoulder operations (range, 1-3) before undergoing the Latarjet procedure. Preoperative indications for surgery included recurrent instability with bone loss in all cases. After a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 22.9 months, patients experienced significant score improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale ( P < .05 for all). There were 2 reoperations (11.8%). There were no cases of neurovascular injuries or other complications. Conclusion: Female patients with recurrent shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss can be successfully treated with the Latarjet procedure, with outcomes similar to those of male patients in the previously published literature. This information can be used to counsel female patients with recurrent instability with significant anterior glenoid bone loss.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial With 15-Year Follow-up With an Assessment of the Glenoid Being “On-Track” and “Off-Track” as a Predictor of Failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110182
Author(s):  
Craig R. Bottoni ◽  
John D. Johnson ◽  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Sarah G. Raybin ◽  
James S. Shaha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Mri Studies ◽  
Open Stabilization ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated equivalent short-term results when comparing arthroscopic versus open anterior shoulder stabilization. However, none have evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of patients after arthroscopic or open anterior shoulder stabilization, with inclusion of an assessment of preoperative glenoid tracking. Purpose: To compare long-term clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability randomized to open and arthroscopic stabilization groups. Additionally, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were used to assess whether the shoulders were “on-track” or “off-track” to ascertain a prediction of increased failure risk. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A consecutive series of 64 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were randomized to receive either arthroscopic or open stabilization by a single surgeon. Follow-up assessments were performed at minimum 15-year follow-up using established postoperative evaluations. Clinical failure was defined as any recurrent dislocation postoperatively or subjective instability. Preoperative MRI scans were obtained to calculate the glenoid track and designate shoulders as on-track or off-track. These results were then correlated with the patients’ clinical results at their latest follow-up. Results: Of 64 patients, 60 (28 arthroscopic and 32 open) were contacted or examined for follow-up (range, 15-17 years). The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 years (range, 19-42 years), while the mean age at the time of this assessment was 40 years (range, 34-57 years). The rates of arthroscopic and open long-term failure were 14.3% (4/28) and 12.5% (4/32), respectively. There were no differences in subjective shoulder outcome scores between the treatment groups. Of the 56 shoulders, with available MRI studies, 8 (14.3%) were determined to be off-track. Of these 8 shoulders, there were 2 surgical failures (25.0%; 1 treated arthroscopically, 1 treated open). In the on-track group, 6 of 48 had failed surgery (12.5%; 3 open, 3 arthroscopic [ P = .280]). Conclusion: Long-term clinical outcomes were comparable at 15 years postoperatively between the arthroscopic and open stabilization groups. The presence of an off-track lesion may be associated with a higher rate of recurrent instability in both cohorts at long-term follow-up; however, this study was underpowered to verify this situation.

Abstract 12022: Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Stents versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis of 14 Randomized Control Trials, Focused on Stent Thrombosis

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
TOSHIAKI TOYOTA ◽  
Hiroki Shiomi ◽  
Takeshi Morimoto ◽  
Takeshi Kimura
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Artery Disease

Background: We sought to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with a meta-analysis method. The long-term clinical outcomes, especially stent thrombosis (ST), after EES versus SES implantation has not been clearly defined among trials directly comparing the 2 types of stents. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. for trials comparing outcomes between EES (Xience V/Promus) and SES (Cypher select/Cypher select plus) in patients with native coronary artery disease using randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. We selected the article reporting the longest follow-up outcomes from each RCT. The outcome measure was all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite ST, and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). ST was further classified as those occurring early (<=30 days), late (30-365 days), or very late (<365 days). Results: We identified 14 RCT comparing EES and SES including 2 trials reporting the longest follow-up outcomes as a pooled analysis. We analyzed 13,434 randomly assigned patients with the weighted follow-up period of 2.1 years (Follow-up <=1-year: 7 trials, and 3191 patients; >1-year: 7 trials, and 10243 patients). EES as compared to SES was associated with significantly lower risks for overall ST, and early ST (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.81, P=0.01, and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.99, P=0.046, respectively), while there was no significant difference in the risk for late ST and very late ST (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-1.43, P=0.19, and OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23-1.85, P=0.43, respectively). EES as compared to SES was also associated with significantly lower risks for TLR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the risk for all-cause death, and MI between EES and SES. (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P=0.11, and OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.13, P=0.44, respectively). Conclusions: In the current meta-analysis of 14 RCT directly comparing EES with SES, implantation of EES as compared to SES implantation was associated with significantly lower risk for definite ST and TLR.

scholarly journals Functional outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability based on suture anchor configuration

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Madan Ballal ◽  
Tarun Jayakumar
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Functional Improvement ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Suture Anchors ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Scores

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> The objective of the study was to evaluate the functional outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability to assess whether the number and position of suture anchors plays a role in determining the functional outcome.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This was a prospective study on 32 patients operated with arthroscopic Bankart repair between December 2017 to April 2019. Pre-op and regular follow-up scores were measured at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post-op using Rowe score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score to assess functional outcome.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Mean age of the study group was 24.5±6.9 years. Functional outcome as determined by Rowe score and ASES score at 6 months follow-up were found to be 90.5±7.2 and 85.9±14.1 respectively when compared to the pre-op scores of 23.2±8.2 and 47.9±5.7 respectively; all of which showed highly significant functional improvement with highly significant reduction in visual analog scale (VAS) pain score. Patients had no recurrent dislocations with mean external rotation limitation of 5<sup>o</sup>. 25 (78.1%) patients had two suture anchors inserted and 7 (21.9%) patients had multiple (&gt;2) anchors; and when analysis was done, there was no statistically significant difference between number of suture anchors used with respect to the functional scores.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> We conclude that arthroscopic Bankart repair is a useful and successful procedure. Patient identification and selection remains the key in determining the success of repair. Meticulous surgical technique and correct positioning of suture anchors may help in reducing the number of anchors without compromising on the final functional outcome, thereby reducing the economic burden on patients.</p>

Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability and Glenolabral Articular Disruption Lesions: A Retrospective Comparative Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (14) ◽  
pp. 3472-3477
Author(s):  
Martin S. Davey ◽  
Eoghan T. Hurley ◽  
Christopher A. Colasanti ◽  
John P. Scanlon ◽  
Mohamed Gaafar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
And Control

Background: Anterior shoulder instability is a common clinical condition that often requires surgical stabilization. Glenoid labral tears are often associated with instability, with glenolabral articular disruption (GLAD) lesions occasionally being identified arthroscopically during repair, particularly in collision athletes. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and recurrence rates in patients who had GLAD lesions and underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and compare them with a control group without GLAD lesions. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR with GLAD lesions, by a single surgeon between July 2012 and March 2017, was performed. Additionally, these were pair matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, sex, sport, and level of play with a control group who underwent ABR without GLAD lesions. Return to sport, the level of return, and the timing of return were assessed. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score, Rowe score, Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score, and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) were evaluated. Results: The study included a total of 66 patients (22 and 44 patients for the GLAD and control groups, respectively), with a mean age of 25.8 years and a mean follow-up of 66 months. Overall, there was no significant difference in any of the clinical outcome scores (VAS, Rowe, SIRSI, and SSV) utilized for the GLAD and control groups ( P > .05 for all). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the total rate of return to play (90.9% vs 88.6%; P > .99) or return at the same/higher level (68.2% vs 72.7%; P = .78). There was no significant difference in timing of return to play (6.3 ± 6.6 months vs 6.4 ± 2.5 months; P = .98). There were 3 cases (13.6%) requiring further surgery (1 revision stabilization, 1 arthroscopic release, and 1 rotator cuff repair) in the GLAD group and 2 cases (4.5%) requiring further surgery (both revision stabilization) in the control group; the difference was not statistically significant ( P = .32). Conclusion: After arthroscopic repair, patients with GLAD lesions had similar midterm outcomes when compared with a control group without GLAD lesions.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Primary versus Revision Surgery using Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction for Anterior Shoulder Instability. (244)

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0035
Author(s):  
Ivan Wong ◽  
Ryland Murphy ◽  
Sara Sparavalo ◽  
Jie Ma
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Primary Group ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Glenoid Reconstruction

Objectives: Revision surgeries after prior shoulder stabilization are known to have worse outcomes as compared to their primary counterparts. To date, no studies have looked at the utility of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) as a revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of primary versus revision AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss. Methods: We performed a retrospective review on consecutive patients with prospectively collected data who underwent AAGR from 2012 to 2018. Patients who received AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and had a minimum follow-up of two years were included. Exclusion criteria included patients with rotator cuff pathology, multidirectional instability and glenoid fractures. There were 68 patients (48 primary and 20 revision) who met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, Hand (DASH) scores. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications and post-operative recurrent instability. Results: The primary group showed a significant improvement in most-recent post-operative WOSI from 62.7 to 20.7 (P<0.001, α=0.05) and in DASH from 26.89 to 6.7 (p<0.001, α=0.05). The revision group also showed a significant improvement in WOSI from 71.5 to 34.6 (p<0.001, α=0.05) and in DASH from 39.5 to 17.0 (p<0.05, α=0.05). When comparing between groups, the revision group had worse WOSI scores (34.6) at most recent follow-up compared to the primary group (20.7); p<0.05. The most-recent DASH scores also showed the revision group (17.0) having worse outcomes than the primary group (6.7); p<0.05. Important to note that the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was met for WOSI (MCID=10.4) but not DASH (MCID=10.83). There were no post-operative reports of instability in either group. For complications, one hardware failure (suture anchor) was seen in the primary group, and two hardware removals were seen in the revision group. Conclusions: While patient reported scores indicated worse outcomes in the revision group, the significant clinical improvement in DASH and WOSI, along with the lack of recurrent instability provides evidence that AAGR is a suitable option for revision patients.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of the Traditional Latarjet Versus the Congruent Arc Modification for the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 232596712110302
Author(s):  
Sunita R.P. Mengers ◽  
Derrick M. Knapik ◽  
Matthew W. Kaufman ◽  
Gary Edwards ◽  
James E. Voos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Late Complications ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Recurrent Instability

Background: Few studies have compared clinical outcomes between the traditional Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability and the congruent arc modification to the Latarjet procedure. Purpose: To systematically evaluate the literature for the incidence of recurrent instability, clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, and complications for the traditional Latarjet procedure and the congruent arc modification and to compare results of each search. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies published between January 1990 and October 2020 that described clinical outcomes of the traditional Latarjet and the congruent arc modification with a follow-up range of 2 to 10 years. The difference in surgical technique was analyzed using a chi-square test for categorical variables, while continuous variables were evaluated using a Student t test. Results: In total, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria: 20 studies describing the traditional Latarjet procedure in 1412 shoulders, and 6 studies describing the congruent arc modification in 289 shoulders. No difference between procedures was found regarding patient age at surgery, follow-up time, Rowe or postoperative visual analog scores, early or late complications, return-to-sport timing, or incidence of improper graft placement or graft fracture. A significantly greater proportion of male patients underwent glenoid augmentation using the congruent arc modification versus traditional Latarjet ( P < .001). When comparing outcomes, the traditional Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower incidence of fibrous union or nonunion ( P = .047) and broken, loose, or improperly placed screws ( P < .001), and the congruent arc modification demonstrated improved outcomes with regard to overall return to sport ( P < .001), return to sport at the same level ( P < .001), incidence of subluxation ( P = .003) or positive apprehension ( P = .002), and revision surgery for recurrent instability ( P = .027). Conclusion: Outcomes after the congruent arc modification proved at least equivalent to the traditional Latarjet procedure in terms of recurrent instability and return to sport, although early and late complications were equivalent. The congruent arc procedure may be an acceptable alternative to traditional Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document