RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) used for primary vs. revision surgery for addressing anterior shoulder instability with bone loss. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review on consecutive patients who underwent AAGR from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. Exclusion criteria included patients with incomplete primary patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), multidirectional instability, glenoid fracture, nonrigid fixation and concomitant humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament, or rotator cuff repair. Our primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) scores, complications, recurrence of instability and computed tomographic (CT) evaluation of graft position, resorption, and healing. RESULTS: There were 73 patients (52 primary and 21 revision) finally included. Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative WOSI and DASH scores. The primary group had significantly better postoperative WOSI and DASH scores at final follow-up when compared to the revision group (WOSI: 21.0 vs. 33.8, P = .019; DASH: 7.3 vs. 17.2, P = .001). The primary group also showed significantly better WOSI scores than the revision group at the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points (P = .029, .022, and .003, respectively). The overall complication rate was 9.6% (5 of 52) in the primary group and 23.8% (5 of 21) in the revision group. Both groups showed good graft healing and placement in the anterior-to-posterior and mediolateral orientation and had a similar rate of graft resorption and remodeling. There was no difference between the groups in the remainder of the CT measurements. CONCLUSION: Functional outcome scores and stiffness were significantly worse in patients undergoing an AAGR procedure after a failed instability surgery when compared with patients undergoing primary AAGR. There were no differences in postoperative recurrence of instability or radiographic outcomes. As a result, AAGR should be considered as a primary treatment option within current treatment algorithms for shoulder instability.
RESUMEN
The arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has increased greatly in popularity over the past decades. Treatment involves the resection of abnormal bony morphology of the femoral head/neck (cam-type) and the acetabulum (pincer-type), which otherwise create damage from the pathologic contact between the 2 structures. More recently, in evaluating the postoperative success of FAI surgery, unsuccessful resection of the cam impingement has been identified as a leading cause for revision. To evaluate adequate cam resection intraoperatively, C-arm fluoroscopy is most commonly used. However, fluoroscopy has disadvantages, including its limited availability in smaller surgical centers, radiation exposure, and it only provides 2-dimensional information of a 3-dimensional problem. With the recent implementation of ultrasound-guided portal placement, a technique for adequate cam resection is the last barrier to eliminating the need for intraoperative imaging for FAI. We present a technique that uses a 1:1 3-dimensional printed model made from computed tomography scans that have the patient's unique anatomy, to better identify and quantify the resection of cam-type impingements. This technique is reproducible and can lead to better understanding of the cam resection for each individual patient. Further, when combined with ultrasound-guided portal placement, it eliminates the need for intraoperative fluoroscopy.
RESUMEN
Background: A subset of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) fail arthroscopic management. It is not clear which patients will fail surgical management; however, several surgical and patient factors, such as type of procedure and age, are thought to be important predictors. Purpose: This time-to-event analysis with a 27-month follow-up analysis compared the effect of (1) arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with or without labral repair versus (2) arthroscopic lavage with or without labral repair on the time to reoperation in adults aged 18 to 50 years with FAI. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Eligible participants had been randomized in a previous study trial to a treatment of arthroscopic osteochondroplasty or arthroscopic lavage with or without labral repair. Using the comprehensive data set from the Multinational Femoroacetabular Impingement Randomized controlled Trial, all reoperations until 27 months after surgery were identified. The analysis was conducted using a Cox proportional hazards model, with percentage of patients with a reoperation evaluated in a time-to-event analysis as the outcome. The independent variable was the procedure, with age and impingement subtype explored as potential covariates. The effects from the Cox model were expressed as the hazard ratio (HR). All tests were 2-sided, with an alpha level of .05. Results: A total of 108 patients in the osteochondroplasty group and 106 patients in the lavage group were included. The mean age of the patients included in the study was 36 ± 8.5 years. Overall, 27 incident reoperations were identified within the 27-month follow-up, with an incidence rate of 6 per 100 person-years. Within the osteochondroplasty group, 8 incident reoperations were identified (incidence rate, 3.4 per 100 person-years), while within the lavage group, 19 incident reoperations were identified (incidence rate, 8.7 per 100 person-years). The hazard of reoperation for patients undergoing osteochondroplasty was 40% of that of patients undergoing lavage (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.91] P = .029). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that for adults between the ages of 18 and 50 years with FAI, arthroscopic osteochondroplasty was associated with a 2.5-fold decrease in the hazard of reoperation at any point in time compared with arthroscopic lavage. Registration: NCT01623843 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
RESUMEN
Anterior shoulder instability and its treatment is a quickly evolving field of interest in orthopaedics, both for patients and for health-care systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) compared with Bankart repair in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of Canada's publicly funded health-care system. A decision-tree model was created to simulate the progression of patients undergoing either a primary Bankart repair or AAGR. Recently published data were used to determine the recurrence rate and level of glenoid bone loss for the AAGR procedure; the recurrence rate was 1.4% in a cohort with a mean glenoid bone loss of 25.3%. A literature review on the primary Bankart procedure in patients with at least subcritical levels of glenoid bone loss yielded a recurrence rate of 22.9% in patients with a mean glenoid bone loss of 17.5%. AAGR served as the revision surgery for both primary procedures. Health utility scores for anterior shoulder instability were obtained from published literature. Total procedure costs, including costs of operating-room consumables, anesthesia, diagnostic imaging, and rehabilitation, were sourced from a hospital database. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 5,000 Monte Carlo simulations was performed, and results were used to create a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: The AAGR procedure was less costly and led to an improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with the arthroscopic Bankart repair in the treatment of patients with anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (AAGR, cost = $16,682.77 [Canadian dollars] and QALYs = 5.76; Bankart, cost = $16,720.29 and QALYs = 5.46), suggesting that the AAGR is dominant, i.e., lower costs with higher QALYs. Applying a commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability that the primary AAGR was more cost-effective was 85.8%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that, from the perspective of a publicly funded health-care system, AAGR was the economical treatment option when compared with Bankart repair in anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
RESUMEN
We describe a technique that creates a 3-dimensional (3D) printed model from a patient's own computed tomography scan. This introduces an adjunct to conventional imaging for the surgical management of femoral acetabular impingement. The creation of a tactile 1:1 scale model with patient-specific anatomy allows for free manipulation and inspection. This is compared to planar imaging and 3D-reconstructed computer tomography scans, which are limited in their degrees of movement. With a minimal learning curve because of a highly iterative process, no prior experience in 3D printing is required to successfully complete this technique. The primary barrier of entry is the initial start-up cost of a 3D printer; however, the price per print is minimal. These models are valuable clinical tools that can be used in preoperative planning, patient education, and medical trainee learning.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition known to cause hip pain in young adults. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of the surgical correction of FAI via arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with or without labral repair compared with arthroscopic lavage of the hip joint with or without labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 220 male and female participants aged 18 to 50 years with nonarthritic FAI suitable for surgical treatment were recruited for the trial at 10 clinical centers in Canada, Finland, and Denmark between October 2012 and November 2017, of whom 214 were included in the final analysis. In the osteochondroplasty group, cam- and/or pincer-type lesions were resected using fluoroscopic guidance. In the lavage group, the joint was washed out with 3 L of normal saline. Surgeons were instructed to repair the labrum in both groups if it was mechanically unstable once probed, showing visible displacement or chondrolabral separation. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain (using the 100-point visual analog scale [VAS]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included hip function (Hip Outcome Score [HOS] and International Hip Outcome Tool), physical and mental health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), and health utility (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) at 12 months as well as any reoperations and other hip-related adverse events at 24 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, there was no difference in pain (VAS) between the groups (mean difference [MD], 0.11 [95% CI, -7.22 to 7.45]; P = .98). Also, 88.3% (189/214) of participants had a labral tear, of which 60.3% were repaired. For the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between treatment groups, with the exception of the HOS activities of daily living domain in which lavage showed significant improvement compared with osteochondroplasty (MD, -5.03 [95% CI, -10.40 to -0.03]; P = .049). By 24 months, there were significantly fewer reoperations reported in the osteochondroplasty group (8/105) than the lavage group (19/104) (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.89]; P = .026). The primary reasons for a reoperation included hip pain (15/27; 55.6%) and a reinjury of the labrum (11/27; 40.7%). CONCLUSION: Both the osteochondroplasty and the lavage groups with or without labral repair for FAI had significantly improved pain or function significantly at 1 year. By 2 years, the reoperation rate was significantly lower in the osteochondroplasty group. REGISTRATION: NCT01623843 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).