RESUMEN
Purpose@#This study aimed to compare the results of using knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair. @*Materials and Methods@#The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2011 and 2017 using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors were retrospectively reviewed. We collected demographic data, clinical scores (pain visual analogue scale), functional visual analogue scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores, and Rowe score), and range of motion (ROM). Re-dislocation and subjective anterior apprehension test rates between the two techniques were also analyzed. @*Results@#Of the 154 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, 115 patients (knot-tying group: n=61 and knotless group: n=54) were included in this study. Of the 115 patients, 102 were male and 13 were female. The mean patient age was 27 years (range: 17–60), and the mean follow-up period was 43 months (range: 24–99). There were no significant differences in the final clinical scores and ROM between the two groups. Re-dislocation was observed in 6 (9.8%) and 4 (7.3%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. Apprehension was observed in 11 (18.0%) and 12 (22.2%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to re-dislocation and anterior apprehension. @*Conclusion@#Re-dislocation rates and clinical scores were similar with the use of knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair after a minimal 2 year follow-up.
RESUMEN
Purpose@#This study aimed to compare the results of using knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair. @*Materials and Methods@#The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2011 and 2017 using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors were retrospectively reviewed. We collected demographic data, clinical scores (pain visual analogue scale), functional visual analogue scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores, and Rowe score), and range of motion (ROM). Re-dislocation and subjective anterior apprehension test rates between the two techniques were also analyzed. @*Results@#Of the 154 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, 115 patients (knot-tying group: n=61 and knotless group: n=54) were included in this study. Of the 115 patients, 102 were male and 13 were female. The mean patient age was 27 years (range: 17–60), and the mean follow-up period was 43 months (range: 24–99). There were no significant differences in the final clinical scores and ROM between the two groups. Re-dislocation was observed in 6 (9.8%) and 4 (7.3%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. Apprehension was observed in 11 (18.0%) and 12 (22.2%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to re-dislocation and anterior apprehension. @*Conclusion@#Re-dislocation rates and clinical scores were similar with the use of knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair after a minimal 2 year follow-up.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Radiographic review of healthy volunteers. PURPOSE: To determine the ideal sitting positions by measuring changes in lumbar lordosis (LL) and pelvic parameters (PPs) in various positions. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Prolonged sitting is generally accepted as an important risk factor for low back pain (LBP). It is now recognized that spinopelvic alignment is important for maintaining an energy-efficient posture. METHODS: Lateral spine radiographs of thrirty healthy volunteers (male participants) were taken in standing and five sitting positions. Radiographic measurement of LL and PPs was performed in each position. Statistical analysis was performed to identify a correlation between changes in the LL and PPs in each positions. RESULTS: LL in standing was 48.5degrees+/-8.7degrees. Sitting significantly decreased LL and segmental angle when compared with standing (p<0.05). The lower lumbar segmental angles (L4-5 and L5-S1) significantly decreased in all sitting positions (p<0.05), but the decrease was relatively less on the chair with lumbar support and in the 90degrees-angled chair. The sacral slope (SS) decreased and the pelvic tilt increased with decreasing LL in the sitting positions. CONCLUSIONS: Sitting causes a reduction in LL and SS when compared with standing. It might cause a spinopelvic imbalance and result in chronic LBP. Our study showed that sitting on a chair with back support induced minimal changes to LL. Consequently, it is proposed that sitting on a chair with back support would be a much more ideal position than sitting on other types of chairs.