...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine >Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for Recurrent Shoulder Instability in Athletes
【24h】

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for Recurrent Shoulder Instability in Athletes

机译:关节镜纸币修复与开放的Latarjet用于运动员的反复肩部不稳定

获取原文

摘要

Background: In athletes with recurrent shoulder instability, arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the open Latarjet procedure (OL) are commonly indicated to restore stability and allow them to return to play (RTP). Purpose: To compare the outcomes of ABR and OL in athletes with recurrent shoulder instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with recurrent shoulder instability who underwent ABR and OL and had a minimum 24-month follow-up. Indications for OL over ABR in this population were those considered at high risk for recurrence, including patients with glenohumeral bone loss. The patients were pair-matched in a 1:1 ratio (OL and ABR) by age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play. We evaluated the rate, level, and timing of RTP, and the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score between procedures. Additionally we compared the recurrence rate, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the same surgery again. Results: Participants included 62 athletes who underwent ABR and 62 who underwent OL, with a mean follow-up of 47.7 months. There was no significant difference between ABR and OL in rate of RTP, return to preinjury level, time to return, SIRSI score, VAS score, SSV, or patient satisfaction. OL resulted in a significantly lower recurrence rate (1.6% vs 16.1% for ABR; P = .009) and a significantly higher Rowe score (mean ± SD, 90.5 ± 12.2 vs 82.2 ± 20.8 for ABR; P = .008). In collision athletes, there was no significant difference between ABR and OL regarding RTP rate (89.1% vs 94.5%; P = .489) or SIRSI score (70.4 ± 24.8 vs 73.8 ± 19.6; P = .426), but OL resulted in a lower recurrence rate (14.5% vs 1.8%; P = .031). Conclusion: ABR and OL resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, with high rates of RTP in athletes. However, lower recurrence rates were seen with OL.
机译:背景:在经常性肩部不稳定的运动员中,通常指出关节镜底盘修理(ABR)和开放的Latarjet程序(OL)以恢复稳定性并允许它们返回播放(RTP)。目的:将ABR和OL的成果进行比较,在运动员中具有反复肩部不稳定。研究设计:队列研究;证据水平,3.方法:我们对患有反诉和OL的反复肩部不稳定的患者进行了回顾性审查,并至少进行了24个月的随访。在该群体中的OL适应症是在高风险中考虑的那些患者,包括胶质形骨损失的患者。患者按年龄,性,运动和术前发挥程度为1:1比率(OL和ABR)对。我们评估了RTP的速率,水平和时序,以及在程序之间受伤后的肩膀不稳定 - 返回运动(SIRSI)评分。此外,我们将复发率与视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分,主观肩部值(SSV),RowE评分,满意度进行比较,以及患者是否会再次接受同样的手术。结果:参与者包括62名运动员,遭受了62岁的人,谁接受了OL,其平均随访47.7个月。 ABR和OL之间没有显着差异,RTP的速度,返回前津属级别,返回时间,SIRSI得分,VAS得分,SSV或患者满意度。 OL导致复发率显着降低(ABR的1.6%与16.1%; P = .009),RowE得分显着更高(平均值±SD,90.5±12.2 Vs 82.2±20.8为ABL; P = .008)。在碰撞运动员中,ABR和OL对RTP率没有显着差异(89.1%Vs 94.5%; p = .489)或SiRSI得分(70.4±24.8 Vs 73.8±19.6; p = .426),但ox导致了较低的复发率(14.5%vs 1.8%; p = .031)。结论:ABL和OL导致优异的临床结果,运动员中的RTP率高。然而,用OL看到较低的复发率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号