RESUMEN
Hip arthroscopy is a surgical procedure that has a technically challenging nature, requiring advanced spatial skills and specialised instrumentation. The most common indication for hip arthroscopy is femoroacetabular impingement, which is increasing due to improved awareness and knowledge of the condition among healthcare professionals. Hip arthroscopy requires many different checkpoints from patient positioning to capsule closure to be successfully completed. Patient positioning is one of the keystones of hip arthroscopy and the probability of a surgeon achieving successful outcomes is significantly influenced by the establishment of optimal access points. The importance of the acetabular labrum and capsule has been better understood in recent years. There has been a noticeable preference towards prioritising acetabular labral repair over debridement or excision. Similarly, consistent with the literature, capsule closure restores naive hip biomechanics more successfully and improves functional outcomes following hip arthroscopy. Osteochondroplasty is a frequently employed therapeutic intervention; yet, attaining optimal osteochondroplasty outcomes might present challenges. The aim is, to restore the full perfect sphericity of the femoral head without attenuation of the head. The aim of this article is to highlight the knowledge accumulated from experiences based on previous hip arthroscopy surgeries as a solution for future troubleshooting steps. Level of Evidence: Level V.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic isolated Bankart repair (B) with Bankart repair plus Remplissage (B + R) procedure in contact overhead athletes with on-track anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A total of 64 athletes playing basketball, volleyball and handball in elite professional level who underwent arthroscopic isolated Bankart repair (34 patients) or Bankart repair plus Remplissage procedure (30 patients) with the diagnosis of recurrent anterior shoulder instability between 2017 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Radiologically all patients had on-track Hill-Sachs defects and minimal or subcritical glenoid bone loss (< 13.5%). Patients were evaluated using pre- and postoperative pVAS, SANE, ASES, ROWE, WOSI scores and postoperative active ROM assessment. Patients were also asked for the frequency of any subjective apprehension and satisfaction with the surgery in four grades. RESULTS: The mean ages of the groups B and B + R were 26.8 and 26 years (SD = 3.22), respectively; the mean follow-up times were 37.8 and 36.2 months (SD = 11.19). Compared with the preoperative status, there was a statistically significant improvement of all 5 postoperative outcome scores in both groups (P < 0.001). However, significant difference between the improvement of the groups were only found for the SANE (B: 22.3 ± 4.1, B + R: 26.3 ± 4.3; P = 0.0004), ASES (B: 26.1 ± 2.6, B + R: 30.2 ± 3.6; P < 0.001) and ROWE (B: 42 ± 3.7, B + R: 47.7 ± 2.8; P < 0.001) scores in favor of the group B + R. The loss of internal and external rotation of the adducted arm in group B + R was found to be approximately 5 degrees compared to the group B (P < 0.001). More than 80% of group B + R showed no apprehension in sports activities and almost completely returned to pre-injury athletic level, depicting statistically significant improvement compared to group B athletes (P = 0.002 and 0.036, respectively). 3 patients developed re-dislocation after isolated Bankart repair, whereas no re-dislocation occurred in the B + R group. CONCLUSION: Adding Remplissage procedure to the Bankart repair provided an advantage in terms of both return to sport at preinjury level and the frequency of apprehension sensation during sports activity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
