Article

Effectiveness of arthroscopic versus open surgical stabilisation for the management of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability.

Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences Research Centre, School of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, and Centre for Allied Health Evidence (a collaborating centre of The Joanna Briggs Institute), University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 06/2007; 5(2):182-207. DOI:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2007.00064.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background  Anterior instability is a frequent complication following a traumatic glenohumeral dislocation. Frequently the underlying pathology associated with recurrent instability is a Bankart lesion. Surgical correction of Bankart lesions and other associated pathology is the key to successful treatment. Open surgical glenohumeral stabilisation has been advocated as the gold standard because of consistently low postoperative recurrent instability rates. However, arthroscopic glenohumeral stabilisation could challenge open surgical repair as the gold standard treatment for traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Objectives  Primary evidence that compared the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus open surgical glenohumeral stabilisation was systematically collated regarding best-practice management for adults with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Search strategy  A systematic search was performed using 14 databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), ISI Web of Science, Expanded Academic ASAP, Proquest Medical Library, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, TRIP Database, PubMed, ISI Current Contents Connect, Proquest Digital Dissertations, Open Archives Initiative Search Engine, Australian Digital Thesis Program. Studies published between January 1984 and December 2004 were included in this review. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria  Eligible studies were those that compared the effectiveness of arthroscopic versus open surgical stabilisation for the management of traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability, which had more than 2 years of follow up and used recurrent instability and a functional shoulder questionnaire as primary outcomes. Studies that used non-anatomical open repair techniques, patient groups that were specifically 40 years or older, or had multidirectional instability or other concomitant shoulder pathology were excluded. Data collection and analysis  Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of each study for inclusion into the review, the study design used and its methodological quality. Where any disagreement occurred, consensus was reached by discussion with an independent researcher. Studies were assessed for homogeneity by considering populations, interventions and outcomes. Where heterogeneity was present, synthesis was undertaken in a narrative format; otherwise a meta-analysis was conducted. Results  Eleven studies were included in the review. Two were randomised controlled trials. Evidence comparing arthroscopic and open surgical glenohumeral stabilisation was of poor to fair methodological quality. Hence, the results of primary studies should be interpreted with caution. Observed clinical heterogeneity in populations and outcomes was highlighted and should be considered when interpreting the meta-analysis. Authors also used variable definitions of recurrent instability and a variety of outcome measures, which made it difficult to synthesise results. When comparable data were pooled, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the arthroscopic and open groups with respect to recurrent instability rates, Rowe score, glenohumeral external rotation range and complication rates. Conclusions  Statistically, it appears that both surgical techniques are equally effective in managing traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. In light of the methodological quality of the included studies, it is not possible to validate arthoscopic stabilisation to match open surgical stabilisation as the gold standard treatment. Further research using multicentred randomised controlled trials with sufficient power and instability-specific questionnaires with sound psychometric properties is recommended to build on current evidence. The choice of treatment should be based on multiple factors between the clinician and the patient.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
28 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many standard shoulder outcome measures do not adequately cover the range of problems and issues specifically encountered in glenohumeral joint instability and have been shown not to be sensitive enough to detect clinical change with intervention adequately. The purpose of this report is to present a prospective evaluation of a new self-administered patient questionnaire specifically designed to assess glenohumeral joint instability. The evaluation involved test-retest reliability and comparison with the Shoulder Rating Questionnaire (SRQ). Sixty-four patients with confirmed glenohumeral joint instability were assessed with both the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Scale (MISS) and SRQ 12 preoperatively and at 6 months after shoulder reconstructive surgery. Twenty-two patients were recruited into a reliability study of the MISS questionnaire. The test-retest reliability of the MISS was found to be 0.98 (interclass correlation coefficient, mixed-model analysis of variance, absolute agreement). Assessment of agreement between the MISS and SRQ questionnaires indicated very poor pretest agreement (0.33) and moderate agreement at 6 months (0.66). The differences between the MISS and SRQ were statistically significant both before surgery (paired t = 13.2, degrees of freedom [ df ] = 63, P < .001) and at 6 months' follow-up (paired t = 7.9, df = 63, P = .001). Change in the questionnaire scores measured from surgery to 6 months' follow-up was significantly greater in the MISS (mean, 30; SD, 19.1; median, 30.8) than in the SRQ (mean, 16.6; SD, 12.8; median, 14.3) (Wilcoxon test: z = -5.8, P = .0001). The results of this study show that the MISS questionnaire is a reliable outcome questionnaire and has a greater range to detect changes in shoulder instability than more global outcome questionnaires such as the SRQ. The higher scores encountered on the SRQ may mean that it underestimates the severity of a patient's instability problem.
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 01/2005; 14(1):22-30. · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify all available shoulder disability questionnaires designed to measure physical functioning and to evaluate evidence for the clinimetric quality of these instruments. Systematic literature searches were performed to identify self administered shoulder disability questionnaires. A checklist was developed to evaluate and compare the clinimetric quality of the instruments. Two reviewers identified and evaluated 16 questionnaires by our checklist. Most studies were found for the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (DASH), the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardised Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES). None of the questionnaires demonstrated satisfactory results for all properties. Most questionnaires claim to measure several domains (for example, pain, physical, emotional, and social functioning), yet dimensionality was studied in only three instruments. The internal consistency was calculated for seven questionnaires and only one received an adequate rating. Twelve questionnaires received positive ratings for construct validity, although depending on the population studied, four of these questionnaires received poor ratings too. Seven questionnaires were shown to have adequate test-retest reliability (ICC >0.70), but five questionnaires were tested inadequately. In most clinimetric studies only small sample sizes (n<43) were used. Nearly all publications lacked information on the interpretation of scores. The DASH, SPADI, and ASES have been studied most extensively, and yet even published validation studies of these instruments have limitations in study design, sample sizes, or evidence for dimensionality. Overall, the DASH received the best ratings for its clinimetric properties.
    Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 04/2004; 63(4):335-41. · 9.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume 06/2004; 86(4):469-79. · 2.69 Impact Factor