RESUMO
Background: Failure rates up to 14% have been reported after arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair. It is unknown if revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral stabilization has inferior restoration of stability and return to sport when compared with primary repair. Optimal management of failed posterior capsulolabral stabilization is unknown. Purpose: To report outcomes of revision posterior capsulolabral repair and factors that contribute to failure and to determine optimal management of failed posterior stabilization procedures. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A computerized search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists were performed in January 2022. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair were eligible. Patient characteristics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Owing to heterogeneity of reported outcomes, data were summarized and presented without pooled statistics. Results: Only 3 of the 990 identified studies met inclusion criteria. The included studies encompassed 26 revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repairs, with follow-up ranging from 2.3 to 5.3 years. The failed index procedure was arthroscopic capsulolabral repair with suture anchors (n = 22) or posterior thermal capsulorrhaphy (n = 4). The primary indications for revision were recurrent instability and pain. Six patients experienced recurrent instability after revision. Patient satisfaction ranged from 15% to 25%. Conclusion: This systematic review of 3 studies demonstrated that the incidence of persistent pain and recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization is common, and despite slight improvement in patient-reported outcomes, many patients are dissatisfied with their clinical outcomes. Revision arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization appears to have a significant failure rate, and there is need for additional prospective studies to help determine the best intervention for these patients.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Finger avulsion injuries account for 5% of upper extremity injuries requiring evaluation in an emergency room. They are devastating injuries that require microvascular reconstruction or amputation. As public awareness rises, there is a growing market for silicone rings, with limited data on their ability to prevent ring avulsion injuries. METHODS: Five cadaver forearms were attached to a custom fixture, allowing for ring avulsion simulations. Specifically designed silicone or metal rings of varying sizes (#4-#11) were assigned to one of five fingers on each forearm, based on fit. The contralateral corresponding finger was tested using a ring of the same size in the other material. A preload of 2 N was applied to each ring, and ultimate failure force was determined by applying an upward force at a loading rate of 500 mm/sec until failure. Additionally, a fifth cadaver forearm was used to determine the ultimate failure force of silicone rings in a clenched fist position. RESULTS: The average ultimate failure force for silicone rings of all sizes was 53.0 N, compared to 495.2 N for metal rings of all sizes. The average ultimate failure force of silicone rings in the clenched fist position was increased across rings of all sizes, with an average of 99.9 N. There were no degloving injuries in the silicone ring avulsion group. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically, silicone rings have a significantly lower failure force than metal rings and may help prevent ring avulsion injuries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of silicone rings should be encouraged in professions where ring avulsion injuries are more likely, such as heavy labor.