Effectiveness of arthroscopic versus open surgical stabilization 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
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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The concept that small incisions lead to a better outcome in many procedures has extended into most surgical areas, orthopaedic surgery among them. However, in some cases there is not enough scientific evidence to recommend these procedures. This article attempts to provide an updated review of the works published with sufficient scientific evidence on the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to conventional access approaches. The published articles, meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews with level I or II evidence are reviewed in topographic order. Wherever possible, the information available on the costs-benefits of this type of surgery is also reviewed.Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología 11/2012; 56(6):444–458. DOI:10.1016/j.recot.2012.07.006
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose To compare the clinical outcome between the use of knotless sutures versus knot-tying sutures in arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Methods Between January 2007 and January 2011, 87 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with the use of knot-tying suture anchors or knotless suture anchors were evaluated, with 45 patients in the knot-tying suture group and 42 patients in the knotless group. Patients were assigned to either group, with odd-numbered patients going to the knot-tying suture arm and even-numbered patients assigned to the knotless arm. Outcomes included the Constant score, the visual analog scale (VAS) score, patient satisfaction score, and range of motion in forward flexion and external rotation with the arm in adduction. Redislocations or subluxations with the 2 techniques was also studied. Results Both groups showed a statistically significant improvement between the preoperative and postoperative VAS scores and Constant scores. In the knot-tying suture group, the VAS score improved from 2.5 ± 2.3 to 0.7 ± 0.5 (P < .05) and the Constant score improved from 64 ± 7 to 92 ± 10 (P < .05). In the knotless group, the VAS score improved from 2.8 ± 2.5 to 0.9 ± 0.6 (P < .05), and the Constant score improved from 62 ± 6 to 89 ± 9 (P < .05). The patient satisfaction scores were 6.9 and 7.1 for the knot tying and knotless groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the outcomes between the 2 groups. The change in the range of forward flexion and external rotation was also similar in the 2 groups. There was also no difference in recurrence or redislocation rates. Conclusions Both the knot-tying and knotless suture anchors groups showed statistically significant and similar improvement in VAS and Constant scores. Both anchors provided reasonable outcomes. The knotless suture anchor is a good alternative to knot-tying suture anchors so that arthroscopic Bankart repairs can be performed without knot tying. Level of Evidence Level II, prospective comparative study.Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 04/2014; 30(4):422–427. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.01.005 · 3.21 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose Shoulder instability frequently recurs in young patients without operative treatment. Both open and arthroscopic approaches to shoulder stabilization with labral repair and capsulorrhaphy have been described and are routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these approaches, with multiple meta-analyses performed to synthesize these trials; however, the results remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the current meta-analyses to identify the current state of the art. Methods In this study we evaluate available scientific support for the ability of both arthroscopic and open soft-tissue stabilization techniques to restore stability of the shoulder by performing a systematic review of the literature for previous meta-analyses. Data were extracted for rates of recurrence and patient outcomes. Study quality was measured with the Oxman-Guyatt and QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) systems. The Jadad algorithm was applied independently by 4 authors to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of available evidence. Results After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 meta-analyses were included. Both studies published prior 2007 concluded that open stabilization provided lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic stabilization, the 3 studies published in 2007 are discordant, and all 3 studies published after 2008 concluded that open and arthroscopic stabilization provided equivalent results. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<3) signifying major flaws. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad algorithm, and this meta-analysis found no difference in recurrence rates between open and arthroscopic stabilization. Conclusions This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization suggests that according to current best available evidence, there are no significant differences in failure rates. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 09/2014; Epub ahead of print. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.07.008 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.