...
【24h】

Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Technical Factors

机译:复发性不稳定后关节镜板卡特重建:系统回顾的手术技术因素

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose Recurrent instability remains of concern after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction. We evaluated various technical factors including anchor design, anchor material, number of anchors used, and interval closure on risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines. Extracted data were recorded on a standardized form. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess study quality and risk bias. Because of study heterogeneity and low levels of evidence, meta-analysis was not possible. Pooled weighted means were calculated and individual study evaluation and comparisons (qualitative analysis) were performed for systematic review. Results Of 2097 studies identified, 26 met criteria for systematic review. Pooled weighted means revealed 11.4% versus 15% recurrent instability with 3 or more suture anchors versus fewer than 3 anchors, 10.1% versus 7.8% with absorbable versus nonabsorbable suture anchors, respectively, and 8.0% versus 9.4% with knotless versus standard anchors, respectively. Interval closure did not qualitatively decrease recurrent instability or decrease range of motion. Conclusions Our systematic review reveals that despite individual study, and previous systematic reviews pointing to the contrary, the composite contemporary published literature would support no difference in the risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction with rotator interval closure, differing numbers of anchors used for the repair, use of knotless versus standard anchors, or use of bioabsorbable versus nonabsorbable anchors. We recommend surgeons focus on factors that have been shown to modify the risk factors after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction, such as patient selection. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies. ]]>
机译:目的反复不稳定的问题在关节镜板卡特重建。评估各种技术因素包括锚设计、锚固材料,数量的锚使用,间隔关闭在复发的风险不稳定后关节镜板卡特重建。MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库,棱镜后的指导方针。记录在一个标准化的形式。指数(未成年人)和非随机研究Newcastle-Ottawa量表(NOS)被用来评估研究质量和风险的偏见。非均质性和低水平的证据,荟萃分析是不可能的。意味着计算和个人学习评估和比较(定性分析)进行了系统综述。2097年研究发现,26了标准系统的回顾。11.4%和15%复发与3或不稳定更多的缝合锚与少于3个锚,用可吸收与10.1%和7.8%分别时缝合锚8.0%和9.4%没有结的对比标准分别锚。定性或减少复发性不稳定减少的活动范围。系统回顾显示,尽管个人学习,和以前的系统评论指出相反,复合当代发表的文献支持没有区别在复发性不稳定的风险与旋转关节镜板卡特重建间隔关闭,不同数量的锚用于修复,使用没有结的对比标准的锚,或使用bioabsorbable和缝合时锚。关注因素修改风险因素后,关节镜板卡特重建,如病人的选择。证据IV级,系统评价的水平III和IV研究。

著录项

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