首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Sports Medicine >A Prospective Analysis of Patients With Anterior Versus Posterior Shoulder Instability: A Matched Cohort Examination and Surgical Outcome Analysis of 200 Patients
【24h】

A Prospective Analysis of Patients With Anterior Versus Posterior Shoulder Instability: A Matched Cohort Examination and Surgical Outcome Analysis of 200 Patients

机译:前肩与后肩患者的前瞻性分析:200例匹配队列队列检查及外科检查分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Anterior and posterior shoulder instabilities are entirely different entities. The presenting complaints and symptoms vastly differ between patients with these 2 conditions, and a clear understanding of these differences can help guide effective treatment. Purpose: To compare a matched cohort of patients with anterior and posterior instability to clearly outline the differences in the initial presenting history and overall outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Consecutive patients with either anterior or posterior glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled; patients were excluded if they had more than 10% anterior or posterior glenoid bone loss, multidirectional instability, neurologic injury, or prior surgery. Patients were assigned to anterior or posterior shoulder instability groups based on the history and clinical examination documenting the primary direction of instability, with imaging findings to confirm a labral tear associated with the specific direction of instability. Preoperative demographic data, injury history, and overall clinical outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and Western Ontario Shoulder Index [WOSI]) were assessed and compared statistically between the 2 cohorts. Patients were indicated for surgery if they elected to proceed with surgical management or did not respond to a course of nonoperative management. Results: The study included 103 patients who underwent anterior stabilization (mean age, 23.5 years; range, 18-36 years) and 97 patients who underwent posterior stabilization (mean age, 24.5 years; range, 18-36 years). The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (range, 24-65 months), and there were no age or sex differences between the groups. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary mechanism of injury in the anterior cohort was a formal dislocation event (82.5% [85/103], of which 46% [39/85] required reduction by a medical provider), followed by shoulder subluxation (12%, 12/103), and “other” (6%, 6/103; no forceful injury). No primary identifiable mechanism of injury was found in the posterior cohort for 78% (75/97) of patients; lifting and pressing (11%, 11/97) and contact injuries (10% [all football blocking], 10/97) were the common mechanisms that initiated symptoms. Only 10 patients (10.3%) in the posterior cohort sustained a dislocation. The most common complaints for patients with anterior instability were joint instability (80%) and pain with activities (32%). In the posterior cohort, the most common complaint was pain (90.7%); only 13.4% in this cohort reported instability as the primary complaint. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization were significantly improved in both groups, but the anterior cohort had significantly better outcomes in all scores measured: ASES (preoperative: anterior 58.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 94.2 vs posterior 87.7, P < .005), SANE (preoperative: anterior 50.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 92.9 vs posterior 84.9, P < .005), and WOSI (preoperative: anterior 55.95, posterior 60.95; postoperative: anterior 92% of normal vs posterior 84%, P < .005). Conclusion: This study outlines clear distinctions between anterior and posterior shoulder instability in terms of presentation and clinical findings. Patients with anterior instability present primarily with an identifiable mechanism of injury and complaints of instability, whereas most patients with classic posterior instability have no identifiable mechanism of injury and their primary symptom is pain. Anterior instability outcomes in this matched cohort were superior in all domains versus posterior instability after arthroscopic stabilization, which further highlights the differences between anterior and posterior instability.
机译:背景:前肩部和后侧肩部稳定性完全不同。本2条件患者之间的申诉和症状在患者之间大大差异,并清楚地了解这些差异可以帮助指导有效的治疗方法。目的:比较前后不稳定性的匹配队列,以清楚地概述关节镜稳定后初始呈现历史和整体结果的差异。研究设计:队列研究;证据水平,2.方法:前瞻性地注册了患有前胶茂或后胶质形状不稳定的连续患者;如果患者患有超过10%的前眼或后关骨损失,多向不稳定,神经损伤或先前手术,则被排除在外。基于历史和临床检查的历史和临床检查分配给前肩部或后肩不稳定组,通过成像发现,以确认与不稳定方向相关的效果。术前人口统计数据,伤害历史和整体临床结果分数(美国肩部和肘部外科医生[ASES],单一评估数值评估[SANE]和西部安大略省肩指数[WOSI])在2个队列之间进行统计进行比较。 Patients were indicated for surgery if they elected to proceed with surgical management or did not respond to a course of nonoperative management.结果:该研究包括103名接受前稳定的患者(平均年龄,23.5岁;范围,18-36岁)和97名接受后稳定的患者(平均年龄,24.5岁;范围,18-36岁)。平均随访时间为39.7个月(范围,24-65个月),群体之间没有年龄或性别差异。没有患者失去随访。前队队损伤的主要机制是正式的错位事件(82.5%[85/103],其中医疗提供者需要减少46%[39/85]),其次是肩部子统计(12%,12 / 103)和“其他”(6%,6/103;没有强有力的伤害)。在后部队列中没有发现患者的后队(75/97)的后队损伤机制;提升和压制(11%,11/97)和接触损伤(10%[所有足球阻断],10/97)是发起症状的常见机制。后队中只有10名患者(10.3%)持续脱位。前稳定性患者最常见的抱怨是关节不稳定(80%)和活动疼痛(32%)。在后部队列中,最常见的抱怨是疼痛(90.7%);这队队列中只有13.4%报告不稳定为主要投诉。关节镜稳定后的临床结果在两组中显着改善,但前队列在测量的所有分数中具有显着更好的结果:ASES(术前:前58.0,后60.0;术后:前部94.2 vs后87.7,P <.005),SANE (术前:前50.0,后60.0;术后92.9 VS后84.9,P <.005)和WOSI(术前:前55.95,后60.95;术后:前92%正常的92%,P <.005 )。结论:本研究概述了在介绍和临床发现方面的前肩和后肩不稳定之间的明显区别。前卫的患者主要具有可识别的伤害机制和不稳定的抱怨,而大多数经典后不稳定性的患者没有可识别的伤害机制,其主要症状是疼痛。在关节镜稳定后,这种匹配队列中的前稳定性结果与后部不稳定性的所有结构型相比,这进一步突出了前部和后部不稳定性之间的差异。

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