RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study aims to systematically assess the postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs with or without concomitant acromioplasty through a rigorous systematic review of randomized controlled trial s (RCTs). METHODS: This systematic review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, aimed to identify RCTs comparing clinical outcomes of patients with full thickness rotator cuff tears undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with acromioplasty versus those without at a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2). Meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes with at least three studies reporting, with pooled effect estimates calculated using either fixed-effect or random-effects models based on heterogeneity levels. Results were presented as the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For outcomes with fewer than three studies reporting, a Fisher exact test was conducted, with continuity correction applied if necessary. Primary outcomes include rates of retear and reoperation, while secondary outcomes included improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, range of motion (ROM), and complication rate. RESULTS: Five high-quality RCTs, with low bias risk, involving 409 patients, revealed demographics of 58.4% males, mean age 58.4 years, and acromion types: 12.2% type I, 70.7% type II, and 17.1% type III. Mean follow-up was 52.2 months. Retear (12.5% versus 16.1%, P = 0.536) and complication rates (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 0.31-30.73; P=0.33) were comparable between the two groups. However, reoperation rate (5.3% versus 15.9%, P < 0.001) and improvement in ASES score (WMD, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.00-6.99; P=0.009) favored the acromioplasty group. Both groups showed significant improvements in ROM, but insufficient data prevented a comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair alone, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with acromioplasty demonstrated similar rates of retear and complications, but a significantly lower reoperation rate and superior improvement in ASES score. The available data were insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion regarding ROM. This conclusion is fragile due to a limited sample size.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Extensive research has been conducted to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair, yielding varying results across different populations. However, there remains a dearth of studies specifically focused on evaluating outcomes in recreational athletes. METHODS: A retrospective case series study was conducted on recreational athletes who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2013 and 2021. The primary outcome assessed was recurrent instability, defined as dislocation or subluxation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, rates of returning to the same sports (RTS) and RTS at preinjury level, and patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of the Rowe score, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and VAS pain score were performed. Prognostic factors for recurrent instability, including demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the labrum were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients met the selection criteria, with 150 (78.5%) available for the final follow-up. Recurrent instability occurred in 10.7% of patients, with a mean follow-up duration of 4.1 years. Younger age at surgery and more critical glenoid bone loss were significantly associated with recurrent instability (p = .038 and p = .011, respectively). The satisfaction rate regarding surgery was 90.0%. Rates of return to the same sports (RTS) and RTS at preinjury level were 82.0% and 49.3%, respectively. Clinical outcomes measured at the final follow-up were as follows: Rowe score - 92.8; Constant score - 98.0; ASES score - 98.3; VAS pain score - 0.2. Patients with recurrent instability had significantly inferior outcomes in terms of satisfaction rate, RTS at preinjury level rate, Rowe score, and Constant score (p = .000, p = .039, p = .000, and p = .015, respectively). A total of thirty-seven patients underwent MRI examination six months after surgery in our institution. The T2-weighted anterior labrum morphology was found to be poorer in patients with recurrent instability. No significant difference was observed between patients with or without recurrent instability in terms of anterior Slope, anterior labral glenoid height index (LGHI), inferior Slope, inferior LGHI, and T2-weighted inferior labrum morphology. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair can yield satisfactory medium-term outcomes for recreational athletes. Younger age at surgery, more critical glenoid bone loss, and poorer T2-weighted anterior labrum morphology assessed six months postoperatively were significantly associated with recurrent instability.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure (LP) is performed as a primary stabilization procedure (primary LP) and a salvage procedure when an earlier shoulder stabilization procedure has failed (salvage LP). However, whether primary LP or salvage LP provides better outcomes for anterior shoulder instability remains unknown. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, web of science and Cochrane Library was performed from their inception date to December 4, 2023. Inclusion criteria mainly included the comparison of postoperative outcomes between primary and salvage LP, English language, and full text availability. Two reviewers independently examined the literature, collected data, and evaluated the methodological robustness of the included studies. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Recurrent instability, complications, reoperations, return to sports, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were assessed. Statistical evaluations were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK). RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the systematic review, with 940 shoulders undergoing primary LP and 631 shoulders undergoing salvage LP. Statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP were found in 2 of the 11 and 2 of 4 included studies in terms of recurrent instability and returning to the same sports (RTS) at preinjury level, respectively. In terms of the visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 2 of the 4, 1 of the 3 and 1 of the 3 included studies reported statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP. Differences were not noticed regarding complications, reoperations, the time to RTS, the Rowe score, the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System, and forward flexion. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that compared with primary LP, salvage LP may provide inferior postoperative outcomes in terms of recurrent instability and the rate of RTS at preinjury level. Primary and salvage LP may yield comparable efficacy in terms of complications, reoperations, the rate of RTS, the time to RTS, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023492027.
