Preoperative Diagnostic Rates and Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Stabilization Procedures for Panlabral Tear of the Glenohumeral Joint.

PURPOSE: To evaluate preoperative diagnostic rates for panlabral tear using imaging studies or physical examinations and to evaluate clinical outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization procedures with 2 different patient surgical positions. METHODS: Patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with panlabral tear and were followed up for at least 2 years were included. A panlabral tear was defined as labral tear involving at least 270° of the glenoid surface on arthroscopic examination. All patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or MR arthrography and physical examinations including anterior apprehension, posterior jerk, and compressive rotation tests. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Rowe, and visual analog scale for pain scores, and recurrence rate. According to patient position during surgery, patients were divided into group I (beach chair position) and group II (lateral decubitus position). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (24 in group I and 24 in group II) were enrolled. Preoperative MR imaging or MR arthrography detected only 18.8% of panlabral tears. No patient had positive findings on all 3 physical examination tests for panlabral tear. Clinical outcomes were significantly improved after operation (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score: 58.4 ± 6.2 preoperatively, 85.2 ± 6.4 at the final, P < .001; Rowe score: 49.0 ± 12.2 preoperatively, 86.8 ± 9.1 at the final, P < .001) and postoperative recurrence was occurred in 1patient (2%). No differences were found in clinical outcomes and recurrence rate (4% vs 0%) according to patient positioning, despite the larger number of suture anchors used in group II (6.2 ± 1.5 in group I, 7.6 ± 1.1 in group II, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: It remained difficult to preoperatively diagnose panlabral tear using standard physical examinations and imaging studies. Nevertheless, arthroscopic stabilization procedures for patients with panlabral tear provided satisfactory clinical outcomes with a low recurrence rate. Patient position during surgery did not alter clinical outcomes and recurrence rate, despite the use of different numbers of suture anchors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Computed Tomography Analysis for Tunnel Diameter After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With the All-Suture Anchor and the Biodegradable Suture Anchor.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes and radiological findings at the anchor site after arthroscopic Bankart repair with all-suture anchors and biodegradable suture anchors in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. METHODS: The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair were divided into 2 groups depending on the type of the suture anchor used in different periods. Power analysis was designed based on the postoperative Rowe score. Clinical outcomes, including the Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, subjective instability, and redislocation rates were evaluated. In all patients enrolled, the tunnel diameter of the anchor was assessed with computed tomography arthrogram at 1 year postoperatively. The Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University approved this study (no. EUMC 2017-05-058). RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were enrolled: 33 underwent surgery with a 1.3-mm (single-loaded) or 1.8-mm (double-loaded) all-suture anchor (group A), and 34 underwent surgery with a 3.0-mm biodegradable anchor (10.8 mm in length, 30% 1,2,3-trichloropropane/70% poly-lactide-co-glycolic acid) (group B). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups A and B in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (preoperatively, 51.2 ± 13.7 vs 47.7 ± 12.2; 2 years postoperatively, 88.5 ± 12.3 vs 89.7 ± 10.9; P = .667) and Rowe score (preoperatively, 41.4 ± 10.5 vs 41.3 ± 9.4; 2 years postoperatively, 87.9 ± 14.9 vs 88.5 ± 14.6; P = .857). Postoperative redislocation (6.1% vs 5.9%, P = .682) and subjective instability rate (12.2% vs 17.7%, P = .386) of both groups showed no significant difference. Average tunnel diameter increment was significantly greater with the 1.8-mm all-suture anchor (2.8 ± 0.9 mm) than the 1.3-mm all-suture anchor (1.2 ± 0.8 mm) and 3.0-mm biodegradable anchor (0.8 ± 1.2 mm) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with the all-suture anchor showed comparable clinical outcomes and postoperative stability as the conventional biodegradable suture anchor at 2 years after surgery. Tunnel diameter increment of the all-suture anchor was significantly greater than that of the biodegradable suture anchor at the 1-year computed tomography analysis. Although tunnel diameter increment was greater with the all-suture anchor, it did not influence the clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Clinical Outcomes and Recurrence Rates After Arthroscopic Stabilization Procedures in Young Patients With a Glenoid Bone Erosion: A Comparative Study Between Glenoid Erosion More and Less Than 20.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and recurrence rates of arthroscopic stabilization procedures in young patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a glenoid bone erosion more than 20%, and to compare with those in patients with a glenoid bone erosion less than 20%. METHODS: A total of 161 patients who underwent an arthroscopic stabilization procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with anterior glenoid bone erosions and at least 2 years of follow-up were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the glenoid defect size (group I [32 patients]: erosion >20%, group II [129 patients]: erosion <20%). The clinical outcomes were compared using the American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Rowe score, and sports/recreation activity level between the 2 groups. Postoperative complications including instability recurrence were documented. RESULTS: The mean glenoid defect size was 22.1 ± 2.1% in group I, and 12.2 ± 3.7% in group II. In group I, clinical outcomes were significantly improved after operation (ASES score: 57.9 ± 14.3 at initial, 88.9 ± 6.2 at the last visit, P = .001; Rowe score: 42.1 ± 15.6 at initial, 87.4 ± 7.6 at the last visit, P = .001). These results were inferior to the clinical outcomes of patients in group II (ASES score: 91.5 ± 12.7, P < .001; Rowe score: 89.3 ± 12.4, P = .01). Postoperative recurrences occurred in 5 patients (15.6%) in group I, whereas patients in group II showed 5.4% of recurrence rate (P = .05). Competent recoveries to sports/recreation activity were achieved in 84.4% of patients in group I. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic stabilization procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in young patients with glenoid bone erosions more than 20% showed satisfactory clinical outcomes and recurrence rate, although these results were inferior to those of patients with glenoid erosions less than 20%. Arthroscopic stabilization procedures can be applied as the primary treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a large glenoid bone erosion for functional restoration and return to previous sports activity level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Effects of Bone Incorporation After Arthroscopic Stabilization Surgery for Bony Bankart Lesion Based on Preoperative Glenoid Defect Size.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent shoulder instability occurs more frequently after soft tissue surgery when the glenoid defect is greater than 20%. However, for lesions less than 20%, no scientific guidance is available regarding what size of bone fragments may affect shoulder functional restoration after bone incorporation. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to analyze how preoperative glenoid defect size and bone fragment incorporation alter postoperative clinical outcomes, we compared the functional outcomes of shoulders with and without bony Bankart lesion. It was hypothesized that differences in postoperative clinical outcomes between patients with and without bony fragments would be found only in patients with a larger glenoid defect. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 223 patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization surgery for recurrent anterior shoulder instability were divided into two groups based on the presence of anterior glenoid bone fragments. In each group, postoperative shoulder functional outcomes, sports activity level, and recurrence rates were evaluated according to preoperative glenoid defect size (small, <10%; medium, 10%-15% and 15%-20%; large, >20%). RESULTS: In patients with small or medium defects, no significant differences were found in postoperative clinical outcomes and sports activity levels between the two groups. However, in patients with a large defect, the patients with bone fragments (mean ± SD American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, 92.3 ± 2.7; Rowe score, 90.9 ± 5.4) showed significantly superior clinical outcomes compared with patients who did not have fragments (ASES score, 87.3 ± 6.2, P = .02; Rowe score, 84.8 ± 7.3, P = .04). Among patients without bone fragments, recurrence increased significantly with increasing preoperative glenoid defect size (recurrence rates: 0% in small defects, 7.4% in medium defects, 22.2% in large defects), whereas patients with bone fragments showed no tendency for increasing or decreasing recurrence rates (0% in small defects, 7.9% in medium defects, 5.9% in large defects). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of bony Bankart lesion, the effect of bone fragment incorporation was different according to preoperative glenoid defect size. In patients with preoperative glenoid defects less than 20% of the glenoid width, bone fragment incorporation after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair did not alter clinical outcomes, sports activity levels, or recurrence rates, whereas in patients with defects greater than 20% of the glenoid width, bone fragment incorporation improved clinical outcomes and recurrence rates.

A Comparison of Radiofrequency-Based Microtenotomy and Arthroscopic Release of the Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Tendon in Recalcitrant Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects of radiofrequency (RF)-based microtenotomy and arthroscopic release of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon in patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis through a prospective randomized controlled study. METHODS: A total of 46 patients were randomly assigned to receive arthroscopic release (group A, 24 patients) or RF-based microtenotomy (group B, 22 patients). The visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, flexion-extension arc, operation time, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and grip power of groups A and B were compared during the recovery phases for up to 2 postoperative years. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant functional improvement compared with their preoperative grip strength and DASH, VAS, and MEPS scores at 2 years after surgery (P < .05). There were no differences in postoperative pain relief or functional restoration between the 2 groups during the recovery phases, however the mean operation time for group B (41.4 ± 5.2 minutes) was significantly shorter than that for group A (15.6 ± 3.6 minutes, P < .001). In group B, 1 patient underwent revision surgery due to postoperative ECRB rupture, and 1 patient in group A underwent open release for persistent postoperative discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: RF-based microtenotomy for treating recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis provided clinical outcomes comparable with those from arthroscopic release of ECRB tendon during the recovery phase. RF-based microtenotomy is considered as one of the surgical procedures for treating recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis, with the advantages of reliable elbow functional restoration and significantly shorter operation time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective randomized trial.

Minimal clinically important differences in Rowe and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores after arthroscopic repair of anterior shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the threshold value for a change that would be considered meaningful by the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCIDs for the Rowe score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score after arthroscopic repair of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: The study enrolled 198 patients who underwent an arthroscopic stabilization procedure for anterior shoulder instability. Patients were assigned to no change and minimal change groups by a 15-item questionnaire at the 1-year postoperative visit. The Rowe and WOSI scores were assessed preoperatively and at a 1-year postoperative follow-up. The MCID was calculated using an anchor-based method and a distribution-based method. RESULTS: There were 9 patients in the no change group and 26 patients in the minimal change group. The MCID for the Rowe score was 9.7 according to the anchor-based method. By the anchor-based method, the authors could not calculate MCID for the WOSI score because of insignificant difference of the mean score changes between the no change and minimal change groups. By the distribution-based method, MCIDs for the Rowe and the WOSI scores were 5.6 and 151.9 with the standard deviation-based estimate and 2.2 and 60.7 with the effect size-based estimate, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To assess the effectiveness of an arthroscopic stabilization procedure for anterior shoulder instability using the Rowe score, a difference of at least 9.7 in the score is clinically relevant. To compare clinical outcomes between different modalities, we should consider not only statistically significant differences but also the MCID.

Subacromial impingement syndrome secondary to scapulothoracic dyskinesia.

The authors describe two cases of subacromial impingement syndrome of the shoulder secondary to scapular dyskinesia caused by a tumor in young adults. The two tumors, an osteochondroma and a ganglion, were located in the scapulothoracic joint and inhibited normal kinesis of the scapula during arm motion.

The validity of ankle-brachial index for the differential diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with atypical claudication.

PURPOSE: Claudication is a typical symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Differential diagnosis of PAD and LSS is often difficult due to the subjective natures of symptoms and atypical signs. The authors aimed to determine the usefulness of ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurement for the differential diagnosis of PAD and LSS when the etiology of claudication is uncertain. METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients who had been referred by spine surgeons to a lower extremity vascular surgeon for atypical claudication were retrospectively analyzed. Atypical claudication was defined as claudication not caused by PAD, as determined by clinical manifestations, or by LSS, as determined by MR imaging. A final diagnosis of PAD was established by CT angiography (CTA) and of LSS by excluding PAD. Diagnostic validity of ABI for PAD in atypical presentation was assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-two legs of 42 atypical claudication patients were analyzed. Mean patient age was 65.8 ± 8.2 years (38-85) and 29 (69.0%) had diabetes mellitus. Mean ABI was 0.73 ± 0.14 (0.53-0.94) in the PAD group and 0.92 ± 0.18 (0.52-1.10) in the LSS group (P < 0.001). Of the 33 legs with a low ABI (ABI < 0.9), 29 legs were diagnosed as true positives for PAD by CTA and 4 were false positives, and of the 29 legs with a high ABI, 5 were false negatives and 24 were true negatives. The sensitivity and specificity of ABI for the diagnosis of PAD in patients with atypical claudication were 85.3 and 85.7%, respectively, and its positive and negative predictive values were 87.9 and 82.8%. CONCLUSIONS: ABI is a recommended screening test for the differential diagnosis of lower leg claudication when clinical symptoms are atypical.