PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of anatomic Bankart repair in patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation compared with either arthroscopic lavage or traditional sling immobilization. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and a clinical trials registry for ongoing and completed randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing anatomic Bankart repair with either rehabilitation or arthroscopic lavage. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed by use of a random-effects model, and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: We included 3 randomized trials and 1 quasi-randomized trial comprising 228 patients. Of the included trials, 2 compared anatomic Bankart repair with sling immobilization whereas 2 compared Bankart repair with arthroscopic lavage. A meta-analysis of all 4 trials showed that the rate of recurrent instability was significantly lower among participants undergoing anatomic Bankart repair compared with those undergoing either immobilization or arthroscopic lavage (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Subgroup analysis showed that this effect persisted when Bankart repair was compared with arthroscopic lavage alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.31) or sling immobilization alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.67). Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scores were better with anatomic Bankart repair compared with either arthroscopic lavage or immobilization (2 studies) (mean difference, -232; 95% CI, -317 to -146). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest treatment of young patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation with anatomic Bankart repair with the goal of lowering the rate of recurrent instability over the long-term and improving short-term quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of anatomic Bankart repair in patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation compared with either arthroscopic lavage or traditional sling immobilization. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and a clinical trials registry for ongoing and completed randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing anatomic Bankart repair with either rehabilitation or arthroscopic lavage. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed by use of a random-effects model, and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: We included 3 randomized trials and 1 quasi-randomized trial comprising 228 patients. Of the included trials, 2 compared anatomic Bankart repair with sling immobilization whereas 2 compared Bankart repair with arthroscopic lavage. A meta-analysis of all 4 trials showed that the rate of recurrent instability was significantly lower among participants undergoing anatomic Bankart repair compared with those undergoing either immobilization or arthroscopic lavage (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Subgroup analysis showed that this effect persisted when Bankart repair was compared with arthroscopic lavage alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.31) or sling immobilization alone (2 studies) (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.67). Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scores were better with anatomic Bankart repair compared with either arthroscopic lavage or immobilization (2 studies) (mean difference, -232; 95% CI, -317 to -146). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest treatment of young patients with a first-time shoulder dislocation with anatomic Bankart repair with the goal of lowering the rate of recurrent instability over the long-term and improving short-term quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
Authors: Sedeek Mohamed Sedeek; Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak; Gerard W W Ee; Andrew H C Tan Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Peter Brownson; Oliver Donaldson; Michael Fox; Jonathan L Rees; Amar Rangan; Anju Jaggi; Graham Tytherleigh-Strong; Julie McBernie; Michael Thomas; Rohit Kulkarni Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2015-05-26