RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, recurrence rate, range of motion (ROM) and return to sports activities between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair (ABR/S) in limited contact-athletes with a type V SLAP lesion in the scenario of recurrent anterior shoulder instability (RASI). Our hypothesis was that there is no difference between the two treatments. METHODS: Two groups of 45 limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion were created. Group 1 underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair, while group 2 had an arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. The WOSI and ASES scores were used to assess primary functional outcomes. Recurrence rate, ROM and return to sport were also evaluated. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores pre- and post-operatively in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.78 and 0.43). We reported 4 recurrences (8.8 %) in group 1 and 5 (11.1 %) in group 2, with no difference between them (P = 0.62). There were no significant differences between the range of motion of each of the groups as well as between them. More than 90% of the athletes in both groups returned to their previous sporting activities. CONCLUSIONS: Limited-contact athletes with RASI who have a type V SLAP lesion as their primary diagnosis can be treated using either ABR or ABR/S with equal efficacy. Both treatment alternatives preserve athlete's function, stability, ROM and return to sport.
Assuntos
Artroscopia , Instabilidade Articular , Amplitude de Movimento Articular , Recidiva , Volta ao Esporte , Humanos , Artroscopia/métodos , Masculino , Volta ao Esporte/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Prospectivos , Instabilidade Articular/cirurgia , Instabilidade Articular/fisiopatologia , Feminino , Adulto , Adulto Jovem , Lesões do Ombro/cirurgia , Articulação do Ombro/cirurgia , Articulação do Ombro/fisiopatologia , Traumatismos em Atletas/cirurgia , Traumatismos em Atletas/fisiopatologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Adolescente , Luxação do Ombro/cirurgia , Luxação do Ombro/fisiopatologia , Lesões de Bankart/cirurgia , Recuperação de Função FisiológicaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift has not yet been tested under the concept of glenoid track as a predictor of failure. The aim of this study was to compare the subjective and objective outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill Sachs lesions versus those with off-track Hill Sachs lesions, all treated with open Bankart repair. METHODS: Two study groups were created: 50 patients had on-track Hill Sachs lesions, while 38 had off-track lesions. The subcritical glenoid bone loss was ≤ 10%. A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was established. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation of each group and between them was performed. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale were used to assess subjective outcomes. Recurrence rate, range of motion and return to sport were evaluated as objective outcomes. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores between preoperative and postoperative values in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.36 and 0.71). Three dislocations (6%) in the on-track group and 3 (7.8%) in the off-track group were recorded, showing no differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.83). There were no differences in ROM between pre- and post-operatively in each group or when comparing the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the outcomes of the two groups. According to the surgeon's preference, we recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with SGBL ≤ 10% independently of the type of Hill Sachs lesion.
Assuntos
Lesões de Bankart , Humanos , Masculino , Lesões de Bankart/cirurgia , Feminino , Adulto , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Traumatismos em Atletas/cirurgia , Articulação do Ombro/cirurgia , Articulação do Ombro/fisiopatologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Volta ao Esporte , Luxação do Ombro/cirurgia , Amplitude de Movimento Articular , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Background: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift (OBICS) and Latarjet procedure (LA) are considered appropriate treatment alternatives for high-performance athletes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and recurrence rate of each surgery. Our hypothesis: there were no differences between the two treatments. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted with n=90 contact athletes divided into two groups of 45 patients. One group was treated with OBICS, and the other one with LA. The mean follow-up period was 25 (24-32) months for the OBICS group and 26 (24-31) months for the LA group. Primary functional outcomes of each group were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after surgery. The functional outcomes were also compared between the groups. The evaluation tools used were the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (WOSI) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES). In addition, recurrent instability and range of motion (ROM) were also evaluated. Results: In each group, significant changes were found in the WOSI score and ASES scale from pre-op to postop. However, there were no significant differences between the functional outcomes of the groups at the final follow-up (P-values 0.73 and 0.19). Three dislocations and one subluxation (8.8%) were reported in the OBICS group, and three subluxations were reported in the LA group (6.6%), revealing no significant differences between the groups (P=0.37). Moreover, there were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative ROM in each group or in terms of external rotation (ER) and ER in 90º abduction between the groups. Conclusion: No differences were found between OBICS and LA surgery. Both procedures can be indicated according to the surgeon's preference to reduce recurrence rates in contact athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.