Bone Fragment Resorption and Clinical Outcomes of Traumatic Bony Bankart Lesion Treated With Arthroscopic Repair Versus Open Latarjet

被引:6
|
作者
Di Giacomo, Giovanni [1 ,2 ]
Pugliese, Mattia [1 ,3 ]
Peebles, Annalise M. [1 ,4 ]
Provencher, Matthew T. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Concordia Hosp Special Surg, Rome, Italy
[2] Concordia Hosp, Rome, Italy
[3] Osped Maggiore, Milan, Italy
[4] Steadman Philippon Res Inst, Vail, CO USA
[5] Steadman Clin, Vail, CO 81657 USA
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE | 2022年 / 50卷 / 05期
关键词
shoulder instability; bony Bankart lesion; Latarjet; bone loss; ANTERIOR SHOULDER DISLOCATION; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; RISK-FACTORS; INSTABILITY; RECURRENCE; OSTEOLYSIS; MANAGEMENT; MORPHOLOGY;
D O I
10.1177/03635465221076841
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Bony Bankart lesions can perpetuate chronic anterior glenohumeral instability. When surgical treatment is pursued, several factors need to be considered to obtain optimal outcomes. Purpose: To (1) quantitatively describe patterns of bone fragment resorption and associated risk factors for developing glenoid bone loss (GBL) and (2) to compare clinical and radiological results of attritional bone loss treated with either the arthroscopic Bankart or the open Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted for patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization (group A1, 10%-20% GBL; group A2, >20% GBL) or open Latarjet (group B, >10% GBL) for recurrent shoulder instability with bony Bankart lesion. Patient characteristics, number of dislocations, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores were obtained. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography imaging was used to quantitatively describe patterns of bone fragment resorption. Results: A total of 120 consecutive patients (group A1, 40; group A2, 23; group B, 57) were included in the study, with a mean age of 25.6 years (range, 19-35 years). The average follow-up was 5.0 years for all groups (range, 4.83-5.16 years in group A1, 4.58-5.41 years in group A2, and 4.33-5.67 years in group B). The mean times between dislocation event and surgery were 12.8 months (range, 6-32 months) and 13.6 months (range, 6-38 months) for groups A and B, respectively. Redislocation rates were 7.5% in group A1 versus 13.0% in group A2, and only occurred in patients with >= 13.5% GBL. There were no redislocations for group B (0%). Patients had better WOSI scores in group B (234.1 +/- 126.9) than in group A (576.1 +/- 224.6) (P < .0001). In group A, smaller preoperative bone fragment size displayed a higher percentage of resorption after surgery (r = -0.64; P < .05). Conclusion: A significant inverse relationship exists between preoperative bone fragment size and percentage of postoperative resorption. Patients treated with arthroscopic bony Bankart repair who had final GBL >= 13.5% had worse outcomes. When planned GBL approaches 13.5% in high-demand patients, a smaller fragment size can result in worse clinical outcomes because of resorption. In these cases, choosing the open Latarjet procedure leads to better clinical results.
引用
收藏
页码:1336 / 1343
页数:8
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for Recurrent Shoulder Instability in Athletes
    Hurley, Eoghan T.
    Davey, Martin S.
    Montgomery, Connor
    O'Doherty, Ross
    Gaafar, Mohamed
    Pauzenberger, Leo
    Mullett, Hannan
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (09)
  • [2] Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for First-Time Dislocators in Athletes
    Hurley, Eoghan T.
    Davey, Martin S.
    Montgomery, Connor
    O'Doherty, Ross
    Gaafar, Mohamed
    Pauzenberger, Leo
    Mullett, Hannan
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (08)
  • [3] Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss
    Calvo, Emilio
    Luengo, Gonzalo
    Morcillo, Diana
    Foruria, Antonio M.
    Valencia, Maria
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (05)
  • [4] Management of an engaging Hill–Sachs lesion: arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair versus Latarjet procedure
    Nam Su Cho
    Jae Hyun Yoo
    Yong Girl Rhee
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2016, 24 : 3793 - 3800
  • [5] Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair
    Gambhir, Neil
    Papalia, Aidan G.
    Alben, Matthew G.
    Romeo, Paul
    Larose, Gabriel
    Gyftopoulos, Soterios
    Rokito, Andrew S.
    Virk, Mandeep S.
    CLINICS IN SHOULDER AND ELBOW, 2024, 27 (02): : 176 - 182
  • [6] Arthroscopic versus open bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability
    Cole, BJ
    Warner, JJP
    CLINICS IN SPORTS MEDICINE, 2000, 19 (01) : 19 - +
  • [7] Open Latarjet Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for the Treatment of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability in High-Demand Patients With Minimal Glenoid Bone Loss
    Genena, Ahmed
    Hashem, Mohamed
    Waly, Ahmed
    Hegazy, Mohamed O.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (04)
  • [8] Management of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion: arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair versus Latarjet procedure
    Cho, Nam Su
    Yoo, Jae Hyun
    Rhee, Yong Girl
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2016, 24 (12) : 3793 - 3800
  • [9] Comparative study of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder dislocation
    Rai, Saroj
    Tamang, Nira
    Sharma, Laxmi Kanta
    Marasini, Rudra Prasad
    Singh, Janith Lal
    Khanal, Kiran
    Ghimire KC, Milan
    Sherchan, Binod
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 49 (04)
  • [10] Bankart repair in traumatic anterior shoulder instability: Open versus arthroscopic technique
    Kim, SH
    Ha, KI
    Kim, SH
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2002, 18 (07): : 755 - 763