We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative study on clinical results of arthroscopic repair of anteroinferior, superior, and combined glenoid labral tear.
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery 2018 January
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective study is to compare and correlate the clinical results of arthroscopic repair of a combined anteroinferior and superior labral lesion with those of an isolated anteroinferior labral lesion or type II superior labral tear from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesion.
METHODS: A comparative study involving patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repairs in a tertiary hospital between 2010 and 2014 was conducted. A total of 96 patients were divided into three groups: Group A consisted of 61 patients with the anteroinferior labral lesion, group B consisted of 16 patients with the type II SLAP lesion, and group C consisted of 19 patients with the combined anteroinferior and superior labral lesion. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, shoulder functional scores (Constant Shoulder Score, UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) Shoulder Score, and Oxford Instability Score), and shoulder ranges of motion were measured and compared.
RESULTS: Except that patients from group B were generally older (28.8 vs. 22.2 for group A and 22.0 for group C, p = 0.04) at the time of surgery, no significant differences exist among the three groups in patient demographics and relevant clinical data. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative clinical outcomes, as well as the improvements, were comparable among the three groups. Low failure rates were observed for all three groups (6% vs. 10% vs. 11%, p = 0.999).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with the type II SLAP lesion underwent surgery at an older age. With appropriate surgical procedures, equivalent postoperative results can be expected for combined anteroinferior and superior labral lesion repair compared to isolated labral lesion repair.
METHODS: A comparative study involving patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repairs in a tertiary hospital between 2010 and 2014 was conducted. A total of 96 patients were divided into three groups: Group A consisted of 61 patients with the anteroinferior labral lesion, group B consisted of 16 patients with the type II SLAP lesion, and group C consisted of 19 patients with the combined anteroinferior and superior labral lesion. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, shoulder functional scores (Constant Shoulder Score, UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles) Shoulder Score, and Oxford Instability Score), and shoulder ranges of motion were measured and compared.
RESULTS: Except that patients from group B were generally older (28.8 vs. 22.2 for group A and 22.0 for group C, p = 0.04) at the time of surgery, no significant differences exist among the three groups in patient demographics and relevant clinical data. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative clinical outcomes, as well as the improvements, were comparable among the three groups. Low failure rates were observed for all three groups (6% vs. 10% vs. 11%, p = 0.999).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with the type II SLAP lesion underwent surgery at an older age. With appropriate surgical procedures, equivalent postoperative results can be expected for combined anteroinferior and superior labral lesion repair compared to isolated labral lesion repair.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app