James P Bradley1, Justin W Arner2, Sachidhanand Jayakumar3, Dharmesh Vyas4. 1. Burke and Bradley Orthopedics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Electronic address: bradleyjp@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 3. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Cranberry, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine risk factors and outcomes of revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair in contact athletes. METHODS: Contact athletes with unidirectional posterior instability who underwent arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair from 2000 to 2014 with minimum 4-year follow-up were reviewed. Revision rate was determined and those who required revision surgery were compared with those who did not. Age, gender, labral and/or capsular injury, level of sport, and return to sport were compared. Pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pain, function, stability, range of motion, strength, and satisfaction were also compared. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of glenoid bone width, glenoid version, labral width, labral version, and cartilage version were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 149 contact athletes' shoulders met inclusion criteria. Eight shoulders required revision surgery (5.4%) at 13.0-year follow-up with 2.6 years between primary surgery and revision. Preoperative stability was significantly worse in those that required revision (0.008). Postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was significantly worse in the revision group (75.1 vs 87.8, P = .03). The only significant risk factor for requiring revision surgery was decreased glenoid bone width (26.4 mm vs 29.1 mm, P = .005). Cartilage version, labral version, and bone version were not significantly different, nor was labral width. Sex, labral injury, capsule injury, both capsule and labrum injury, and level of sport were not risk factors. Both return to sport at the same level (revision = 16.7% vs nonrevision = 72.1%, P < .001) and overall return to sport (revision = 50.0% vs nonrevision=93.7%, P < .001) were significantly worse in the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Contact athletes underwent revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair at an incidence of 5.4% at minimum 4-year and average 13.0-year follow-up. The only significant risk factors for requiring revision surgery was smaller glenoid bone width and higher preoperative instability. Return to play after their subsequent surgery was significantly worse. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
PURPOSE: To determine risk factors and outcomes of revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair in contact athletes. METHODS: Contact athletes with unidirectional posterior instability who underwent arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair from 2000 to 2014 with minimum 4-year follow-up were reviewed. Revision rate was determined and those who required revision surgery were compared with those who did not. Age, gender, labral and/or capsular injury, level of sport, and return to sport were compared. Pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pain, function, stability, range of motion, strength, and satisfaction were also compared. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of glenoid bone width, glenoid version, labral width, labral version, and cartilage version were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 149 contact athletes' shoulders met inclusion criteria. Eight shoulders required revision surgery (5.4%) at 13.0-year follow-up with 2.6 years between primary surgery and revision. Preoperative stability was significantly worse in those that required revision (0.008). Postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was significantly worse in the revision group (75.1 vs 87.8, P = .03). The only significant risk factor for requiring revision surgery was decreased glenoid bone width (26.4 mm vs 29.1 mm, P = .005). Cartilage version, labral version, and bone version were not significantly different, nor was labral width. Sex, labral injury, capsule injury, both capsule and labrum injury, and level of sport were not risk factors. Both return to sport at the same level (revision = 16.7% vs nonrevision = 72.1%, P < .001) and overall return to sport (revision = 50.0% vs nonrevision=93.7%, P < .001) were significantly worse in the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Contact athletes underwent revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair at an incidence of 5.4% at minimum 4-year and average 13.0-year follow-up. The only significant risk factors for requiring revision surgery was smaller glenoid bone width and higher preoperative instability. Return to play after their subsequent surgery was significantly worse. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
Authors: Abdul-Ilah Hachem; Andres Molina-Creixell; Xavier Rius; Karla Rodriguez-Bascones; Francisco Javier Cabo Cabo; Jose Luis Agulló; Miguel Angel Ruiz-Iban Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2022-08-04