BACKGROUND: The value of arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization after failed instability repair is still a matter of debate. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization using suture anchors provides equivalent subjective and objective results compared with initial arthroscopic instability repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization using suture anchors (group 2) were matched for age, gender, and handedness (dominant or nondominant) with 20 patients who had initial arthroscopic instability repair using the same technique (group 1). At the time of follow-up, a complete physical examination of both shoulders and evaluation with the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and the Subjective Shoulder Value were performed. In addition, standard radiographs (true AP and axillary views) were taken to evaluate signs of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24 months, no recurrent dislocations were observed in either group. The apprehension sign was positive in 2 cases of revision surgery (0 vs 2; P > .05). No significant differences in the Rowe score (89 vs 81.8 points) were found between groups 1 and 2 (P > .05). However, group 2 revealed significantly lower scores in the Walch-Duplay score (85.3 vs 75.5 points), Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (90.2 vs 73.7 points), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (89.8% vs 68.9%), and Subjective Shoulder Value (91.8% vs 69.2%) (P < .05). Signs of instability arthropathy were found more often in patients with arthroscopic revision surgery (2 vs 5; P > .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization is associated with a lower subjective outcome compared with initial arthroscopic stabilization. The objective results found in this study may overestimate the clinical outcome in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: The value of arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization after failed instability repair is still a matter of debate. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization using suture anchors provides equivalent subjective and objective results compared with initial arthroscopic instability repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization using suture anchors (group 2) were matched for age, gender, and handedness (dominant or nondominant) with 20 patients who had initial arthroscopic instability repair using the same technique (group 1). At the time of follow-up, a complete physical examination of both shoulders and evaluation with the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and the Subjective Shoulder Value were performed. In addition, standard radiographs (true AP and axillary views) were taken to evaluate signs of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: After a minimum follow-up of 24 months, no recurrent dislocations were observed in either group. The apprehension sign was positive in 2 cases of revision surgery (0 vs 2; P > .05). No significant differences in the Rowe score (89 vs 81.8 points) were found between groups 1 and 2 (P > .05). However, group 2 revealed significantly lower scores in the Walch-Duplay score (85.3 vs 75.5 points), Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (90.2 vs 73.7 points), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (89.8% vs 68.9%), and Subjective Shoulder Value (91.8% vs 69.2%) (P < .05). Signs of instability arthropathy were found more often in patients with arthroscopic revision surgery (2 vs 5; P > .05). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic revision shoulder stabilization is associated with a lower subjective outcome compared with initial arthroscopic stabilization. The objective results found in this study may overestimate the clinical outcome in this patient population.
Authors: Bradley M Kruckeberg; Devin P Leland; Christopher D Bernard; Aaron J Krych; Diane L Dahm; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Christopher L Camp Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-11-11
Authors: Johannes Buckup; Frederic Welsch; Yves Gramlich; Reinhard Hoffmann; Philip P Roessler; Karl F Schüttler; Thomas Stein Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-21
Authors: Brian C Lau; Tyler R Johnston; Bonnie P Gregory; Lorena Bejarano Pineda; Mark Wu; Amanda N Fletcher; Jessica H Hu; Leila Ledbetter; Jonathan C Riboh Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-05-29
Authors: Jean-David Werthel; Vincent Sabatier; Bradley Schoch; Lior Amsallem; Geoffroy Nourissat; Philippe Valenti; Jean Kany; Julien Deranlot; Nicolas Solignac; Philippe Hardy; Marie Vigan; Alexandre Hardy Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 6.202