ARTHROSCOPIC INFERIOR TO SUPERIOR CAPSULAR SHIFT RESULTS IN SUPERIOR CLINICAL OUTCOMES COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL ARTHROSCOPIC BANKART REPAIR FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANTERIOR CAPSULOLABRAL TEARS AFTER SHOULDER DISLOCATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the setting of anterior shoulder instability, both boney and soft tissue structures are at risk of injury. Often, there is an injury to the anterior capsulolabral complex. This pathology is most often treated with a traditional arthroscopic Bankart repair. The open Bankart is regaining popularity as some surgeons report a lower re-dislocation rate as compared to its arthroscopic counterpart. Some believe that a better capsular shift is achieved with open surgery. We recently developed a technique for performing this capsular shift arthroscopically. The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare clinical outcomes of patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability treated with two different arthroscopic techniques, arthroscopic capsular shift and arthroscopic Bankart repair (Figure 1). The primary objective of this study is to analyze and compare clinical outcomes, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) scores, complication, and re-dislocation rates. We hypothesize that patients treated with arthroscopic capsular shift will have similar clinical outcomes and a lower failure rate at one year compared with the other surgical cohort. This study included patients who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization surgery for shoulder instability between 2012–2021. Patients were included if they had an isolated primary soft-tissue repair performed arthroscopically with one of the above-mentioned surgical techniques. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant glenoid fractures, less than one year of clinical follow-up, posterior instability, multidirectional instability, and presence of HAGL lesions Demographic information, WOSI scores, pre-operative glenoid and humeral head dimensions, and new dislocation events were recorded. Sixty-three patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 27 patients in the Bankart repair group and 36 in the capsular shift group. The two groups had similar demographics and baseline characteristics, except for the length of clinical follow-up (which is due to the capsular shift technique being developed more recently) (p<0.001) (Table 1). Both groups had similar pre-operative glenoid AP and Hill-Sachs depth measurements (p=0.358 and 0.329, respectively) (Table 1). Patient-reported outcomes were similar at baseline (p=0.602) and post-operatively (p=0.621). Both groups showed improvements in WOSI post-operatively (p<0.001), however more patients met MCID in the capsular shift group as compared to the Bankart repair group (93% vs 75%, respectively). In terms of clinical outcomes, patients who received a capsular shift had a lower rate of re-dislocation as compared to the Bankart group (6% vs 22%). The arthroscopic capsular shift technique results in better post-operative clinical outcomes as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair with a lower recurrence rate, lower rate of post-operative apprehension, and an increased proportion of patients who meet MCID for WOSI. This technique could be a better alternative for Bankart repair in patients with soft-tissue pathologies following anterior shoulder dislocations, however longer-term studies are necessary to determine the longevity of these outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».