Shoulder arthroscopy: part III arthroscopic versus open anterior shoulder stabilization

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the efficacy of a particular line of treatment, criteria based on functional basis and complication rate must be considered. This work was carried out because of the authors' conviction that any new operative procedure must be critically assessed, on this basis, comparison with other procedures must be included. Forty one shoulders were allocated to an arthroscopic repair group [19 shoulders], and an open repair group [22 shoulders]. The two groups were generally comparable in terms of age [a mean of 25.2 years in the arthroscopic group and 27.3 years in the open group], gender [all patients in either group were males], mechanism of injury and etiology of instability [all patients related a history of a traumatic event], dominant extremity [the right and the dominant side was the most vulnerable], duration of symptoms [a mean of 13 months and 19 months for the arthroscopic and open groups respectively], level of daily activities and effort demand [all were young active with high physical demand]. Three variations were existed [1] pre-selection and pre-conditioning was the strategy in the arthroscopic repair group, so that, procedural option was determined on the basis of the pathological findings, only at the time of surgery, modification of treatment was possible. [2] the arthroscopic procedure involved an anatomic repair of the avulsed anterior capsule and labrum to the glenoid lip using standardized suture anchor technique and an incorporation of capsulorraphy in most shoulders. While in the open repair group, different operative modalities were employed using familiar techniques including 2 soft tissue reconstructions; Magnuson - Stack [4 shoulders] and Putti-Platt [6 shoulders]. In addition, coracoid tip with its attached muscles transfer [Bristow operation in 9 shoulders] and rerouting [Boytchev operation in 3 shoulders]. [3] the duration of the follow-up, which considered short-to-mid term [averaging 18 months] and long-term [averaging 71 months] in the arthroscopic and open groups respectively. The treatment outcomes for each group were determined according to the recurrence rate, the presence or absence of -pain, the range of motion, the strength and the return to pre-injury activity. Analysis of the measured parameters for both approaches; open and arthroscopic showed no significant differences, both yielded comparable results: