Silvana De Giorgi1, Raffaele Garofalo2, Silvio Tafuri3, Eugenio Cesari4, Giacomo Delle Rose4, Alessandro Castagna4. 1. Department Basic Medical Sciences, Neuro-sciences and Sensory, University of Bari, Italy. 2. Shoulder Service, Miulli Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Bari, Italy. 3. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari, Italy. 4. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Institute, Rozzano, Milano, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: the aim of this study was to evaluate the role of arthroscopic capsuloplasty in the treatment of failed primary arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability. METHODS: we retrospectively examined at a minimum of 3-years follow-up 22 patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment between 1999 and 2007 who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a post-surgical failure. A statistical analysis was performed to evaluate which variable could influence the definitive result and clinical outcomes at final follow-up. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: we observed after revision surgery an overall failure rate of 8/22 (36.4%) including frank dislocations, subluxations and also apprehension that seriously inhibit the patient's quality of life. No significant differences were observed in the examined parameters. CONCLUSIONS: according to our outcomes we generally do not recommend an arthroscopic revision procedure for failed instability surgery.
BACKGROUND: the aim of this study was to evaluate the role of arthroscopic capsuloplasty in the treatment of failed primary arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability. METHODS: we retrospectively examined at a minimum of 3-years follow-up 22 patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment between 1999 and 2007 who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a post-surgical failure. A statistical analysis was performed to evaluate which variable could influence the definitive result and clinical outcomes at final follow-up. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: we observed after revision surgery an overall failure rate of 8/22 (36.4%) including frank dislocations, subluxations and also apprehension that seriously inhibit the patient's quality of life. No significant differences were observed in the examined parameters. CONCLUSIONS: according to our outcomes we generally do not recommend an arthroscopic revision procedure for failed instability surgery.
Authors: Brian R Neri; David V Tuckman; Jonathan T Bravman; Duke Yim; Deenesh T Sahajpal; Andrew S Rokito Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007-05-24 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: R Alexander Creighton; Anthony A Romeo; Fredrick M Brown; Jennifer K Hayden; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.772
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: Brian C Lau; Lorena Bejarano Pineda; Tyler R Johnston; Bonnie P Gregory; Mark Wu; Amanda N Fletcher; Leila Ledbetter; Jonathan C Riboh Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-03-04
Authors: Hassanin Alkaduhimi; James W Connelly; Derek F P van Deurzen; Denise Eygendaal; Michel P J van den Bekerom Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Alexandre Almeida; Samuel Millán Menegotto; Nayvaldo Couto de Almeida; Ana Paula Agostini; Letícia Agostini de Almeida Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2017-06-22