• Arthroscopy · Mar 2020

    Comparative Study

    Revision Arthroscopic Posterior Shoulder Capsulolabral Repair in Contact Athletes: Risk Factors and Outcomes.

    • James P Bradley, Justin W Arner, Sachidhanand Jayakumar, and Dharmesh Vyas.
    • Burke and Bradley Orthopedics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Electronic address: bradleyjp@upmc.edu.
    • Arthroscopy. 2020 Mar 1; 36 (3): 660-665.

    PurposeTo determine risk factors and outcomes of revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair in contact athletes.MethodsContact athletes with unidirectional posterior instability who underwent arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair from 2000 to 2014 with minimum 4-year follow-up were reviewed. Revision rate was determined and those who required revision surgery were compared with those who did not. Age, gender, labral and/or capsular injury, level of sport, and return to sport were compared. Pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pain, function, stability, range of motion, strength, and satisfaction were also compared. Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of glenoid bone width, glenoid version, labral width, labral version, and cartilage version were also compared.ResultsA total of 149 contact athletes' shoulders met inclusion criteria. Eight shoulders required revision surgery (5.4%) at 13.0-year follow-up with 2.6 years between primary surgery and revision. Preoperative stability was significantly worse in those that required revision (0.008). Postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was significantly worse in the revision group (75.1 vs 87.8, P = .03). The only significant risk factor for requiring revision surgery was decreased glenoid bone width (26.4 mm vs 29.1 mm, P = .005). Cartilage version, labral version, and bone version were not significantly different, nor was labral width. Sex, labral injury, capsule injury, both capsule and labrum injury, and level of sport were not risk factors. Both return to sport at the same level (revision = 16.7% vs nonrevision = 72.1%, P < .001) and overall return to sport (revision = 50.0% vs nonrevision=93.7%, P < .001) were significantly worse in the revision group.ConclusionsContact athletes underwent revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair at an incidence of 5.4% at minimum 4-year and average 13.0-year follow-up. The only significant risk factors for requiring revision surgery was smaller glenoid bone width and higher preoperative instability. Return to play after their subsequent surgery was significantly worse.Level Of EvidenceLevel III, comparative study.Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…