MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3208372613 · doi:10.1177/2325967121s00345

Failure Rates in Contact versus Non-Contact Athletes Following Arthroscopic Inferior Capsular Shift at 10-Year Follow-Up (237)

2021· article· en· W3208372613 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin D. Plancher, Thomas Evely, Stephanie C. Petterson

Notice bibliographique

RevueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueShoulder Injury and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineShouldersBankart repairAthletesBankart lesionAnterior shoulderElbowSurgeryArthroscopyPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objectives: Arthroscopic Bankart repair has become the surgical procedure of choice for many in the United States, over the Latarjet in Europe, for first time anterior shoulder instability with minimal bone loss, less than 20%. However, high recurrence rates in contact athletes have led many to proceed with open type procedures. Our purpose was to compare failure rates and functional outcomes of the arthroscopic inferior capsular shift in contact and non-contact athletes. We hypothesized that contact and non-contact athletes would exhibit excellent functional outcomes and return to sport with low recurrence rates. Methods: A consecutive series of 69 shoulders in 61 contact and non-contact athletes underwent an arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with ≥3 suture anchors by a single surgeon (1999-2018). Thirty shoulders in 26 contact athletes (6 women; 25.3±8.1 years) and 39 shoulders in 35 non-contact athletes (7 women; 34.8±10.0 years) were included. Inclusion criteria were complete anterior inferior labral detachment (6 unit hours) and ≥2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included multidirectional instability, engaging Hill Sachs lesion or glenoid bone loss >30%. A modified 3-portal technique utilizing the outside-in method was employed. A conservative rehabilitation program was followed with return to sport no sooner than 3 months in non-contact, 4-5 months in contact, and 9 months in throwing athletes. Functional outcomes were measured using Constant Scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Melbourne Instability Shoulder Scale (MISS), and Rowe. Forward elevation, external rotation at side and 90° abduction and internal rotation range of motion (ROM) were measured. Independent samples t-tests were used to assess differences in outcomes between contact and non-contact athletes (Bonferroni correction: p<0.006). Results: Follow-up was 11.0±3.5 years (range 2-16 years) in contact athletes and 12.2±4.3 years (range 2-21 years) in non-contact athletes (p=0.264). Contact athletes were significantly younger than non-contact athletes (p<0.0001). An average of 3.9±1.7 and 3.1±1.0 suture anchors were used in contact and non-contact groups, respectively (p=0.348). There were no significant differences in post-operative functional scores (all p>0.053) or shoulder ROM (all p>0.034) between groups. Forward flexion was 163.75±16.8° pre-operatively and 168.89±13.0° post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.212) and 162.5±13.7° preoperatively and 170±7.7° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.005). External rotation at the side was 59.04±19.4° pre-operatively and 67.9±18.6° value post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.094) and 52.94±25.1° pre-operatively and 62.83±14.3° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.062). External rotation at 90° abduction was 92.61±20.1° pre-operatively and 93.39±12.9° post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.867) and 88.33±21.1° pre-operatively and 87.5±8.1° post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.842).Internal rotation behind the back was to an average of T11 pre-operatively and T9 post-operatively in contact athletes (p=0.004) and L1 pre-operatively and T9 post-operatively in non-contact athletes (p=0.001).In contact and non-contact athletes, respectively, Rowe scores were 65.35±17.6 and 51.25±13.2 preoperatively and 89.22±17.6 and 96.25±12.4 post-operatively (p=0.002 and p<0.001); Constant Scores were 75.69±12.6 and 61.67±11.3 pre-operatively 85.79±19.6 and 89.71±13.6 post-operatively; ASES scores were 80.40±15.3 and 62.14±22.2 pre-operatively and 93.91±9.9 and 86.06±20.7 post-operatively (p<0.001 and p<0.001); MISS scores were 59.36±12.4 and 48.39±15.5 preoperatively and 88.20±13.5 and 75.75±19.7 post-operatively (p<0.001 and p<0.001); WOSI was 3.50±1.3 and 4.55±1.4 pre-operatively and 1.70±3.0 and 2.94±2.7 post-operatively (p=0.101 and p=0.066). Overall recurrence rate was 4.3% (3/69). Two contact athletes (2/30; 6.7%) and one non-contact athlete (1/39; 2.6%) experienced a traumatic recurrent instability event requiring revision surgery (p=0.439). These three patients underwent a revision arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with an additional 3-4 plication sutures and returned to pre-injury sports including hockey, football, skiing, and tennis without recurrence of instability at greater than 7 years following the revision surgery. Conclusions: Modified arthroscopic inferior capsular shift utilizing ≥3 suture anchors with plication sutures returns contact and non-contact athletes to sports with excellent functional outcomes, low recurrence rates (3/69), and full unrestricted ROM. While loss of ROM is a concern, particularly in overhead athletes, ROM was successfully restored in all patients, most notably in external rotation at 90° abduction. We recommend a modified arthroscopic inferior capsular shift with plication sutures as the primary procedure in all athletes with anterior instability with less than 30% bone loss excluding those with high Beighton scores rather than a Latarjet.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineMême sujetShoulder Injury and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207