Does creating a trough on the anterior glenoid rim make a difference in Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors? A mid-term follow-up retrospective study
Creating a trough on the anterior glenoid rim is one of the methods used for arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors. The purpose of this study was to analyze clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors; to compare between the outcomes of surgical pr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association 2019-03, Vol.24 (2), p.250-257 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Creating a trough on the anterior glenoid rim is one of the methods used for arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors. The purpose of this study was to analyze clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors; to compare between the outcomes of surgical procedures with and without trough.
Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated for 116 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at our institute from 2005 to 2011. The mean follow-up was 5.2 years (range, 2–8.8 years). All data were divided into trough group (n = 62) and non-trough group (n = 71). Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed pre- and postoperatively as range of motion (ROM), pain on the visual analog scale (p-VAS), function on the visual analog scale (f-VAS), and Rowe score. Radiological outcomes were also evaluated.
The overall postoperative clinical and functional outcomes improved significantly (P .05).
The additional procedure of creating a trough did not improve clinical outcomes in terms of frank dislocation; however, at the final follow-up, patients with the trough showed less anterior apprehension. Overall, arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors had relatively good clinical outcome, with a redislocation rate of 6.8%.
Level III, Case series. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0949-2658 1436-2023 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jos.2018.09.024 |