Bankart versus Latarjet operation as a revision procedure after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.
Arthroscopic Bankart
anterior shoulder instability
open Latarjet
patient reported outcome
revision
shoulder dislocation
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
4
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An arthroscopic Bankart operation is the most common operative procedure to treat shoulder instability. In case of recurrence, both Bankart and Latarjet procedures are used as revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the re-recurrence rate of instability and clinical results after arthroscopic revision Bankart and open revision Latarjet procedures following failed primary arthroscopic Bankart operations. Consecutive patients operatively treated for shoulder instability at Turku University Hospital between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed. Patients who underwent a primary arthroscopic Bankart operation followed by a recurrence of instability and underwent a subsequent arthroscopic Bankart or open Latarjet revision operation with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were called in for a follow-up evaluation. The re-recurrence of instability, Subjective Shoulder Value, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index were assessed. Of 69 patients, 48 (dropout rate, 30%) were available for follow-up. Recurrent instability symptoms occurred in 13 patients (43%) after the revision Bankart procedure and none after the revision Latarjet procedure. A statistically and clinically significant difference in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index was found between the patients after the revision Bankart and revision Latarjet operations (68% and 88%, respectively; The redislocation rate after an arthroscopic revision Bankart operation is high. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes remain poor after a revision Bankart procedure compared with a revision Latarjet operation. We propose that in cases of recurring instability after a failed primary Bankart operation, an open Latarjet revision should be considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
An arthroscopic Bankart operation is the most common operative procedure to treat shoulder instability. In case of recurrence, both Bankart and Latarjet procedures are used as revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the re-recurrence rate of instability and clinical results after arthroscopic revision Bankart and open revision Latarjet procedures following failed primary arthroscopic Bankart operations.
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive patients operatively treated for shoulder instability at Turku University Hospital between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed. Patients who underwent a primary arthroscopic Bankart operation followed by a recurrence of instability and underwent a subsequent arthroscopic Bankart or open Latarjet revision operation with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were called in for a follow-up evaluation. The re-recurrence of instability, Subjective Shoulder Value, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 69 patients, 48 (dropout rate, 30%) were available for follow-up. Recurrent instability symptoms occurred in 13 patients (43%) after the revision Bankart procedure and none after the revision Latarjet procedure. A statistically and clinically significant difference in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index was found between the patients after the revision Bankart and revision Latarjet operations (68% and 88%, respectively;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The redislocation rate after an arthroscopic revision Bankart operation is high. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes remain poor after a revision Bankart procedure compared with a revision Latarjet operation. We propose that in cases of recurring instability after a failed primary Bankart operation, an open Latarjet revision should be considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32490416
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.01.004
pii: S2666-6383(20)30014-1
pmc: PMC7256887
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
292-296Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Feb;29(2):381-391
pubmed: 31495706
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Dec;18(12):1752-8
pubmed: 20349040
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 May;25(5):853-63
pubmed: 26809355
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):742-7
pubmed: 17967548
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;13(5):509-16
pubmed: 15383806
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Sep;(390):17-30
pubmed: 11550863
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007 Apr;15(1):4-8
pubmed: 17429108
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jun 6;94(11):e75
pubmed: 22637215
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Aug;472(8):2345-51
pubmed: 24615422
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Jun;80(6):841-52
pubmed: 9655102
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jul;88(7):1467-74
pubmed: 16818971
Lyon Chir. 1954 Nov-Dec;49(8):994-7
pubmed: 13234709
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Feb;101(1):35-8
pubmed: 25555805
Arthroscopy. 2013 Sep;29(9):1572-8
pubmed: 23820259
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Sep;89(9):1188-96
pubmed: 17905956
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009 Jan;91(1):2-7
pubmed: 19126329
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
Unfallchirurg. 1998 Mar;101(3):226-31
pubmed: 9577220
Am J Sports Med. 1998 Nov-Dec;26(6):764-72
pubmed: 9850776
Arthroscopy. 2017 Jun;33(6):1102-1112
pubmed: 28454999
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Apr;65(4):456-60
pubmed: 6833319