AN OUTCOME STUDY OF SHOULDER STABILIZATION – COMPARISON OF ARTHROSCOPIC VS OPEN.

Abstract

We undertook the current study to analyze the factors involved with failed previous stabilization surgery for patients with anterior or anteroinferior glenohumeral instability. Between 1997 and 2003 we treated seventy-four patients with traumatic unidirectional instability. The average age was thirty-two and the average follow up was fifty-eight months. There were sixteen females and fifty-eight males. All patients underwent a primary diagnostic arthroscopy followed by arthroscopic stabilization in forty-seven and open stabilization in twenty-seven cases. Ten had a recurrence of instability. Of these two had significant trauma. Of the remaining, six were in the arthroscopic group and two in the open procedure group.

Analyze the factors involved with failed previous stabilization surgery for patients with anterior or anteroinferior glenohumeral instability.

Between 1997 and 2003 we treated seventy-four patients with traumatic unidirectional instability. The average age was thirty-two years (range nineteen to forty-seven). There were sixteen females and fifty-eight males. The average follow up was fifty-eight months (range seven to eighty-three). All patients underwent a primary diagnostic arthroscopy followed by arthroscopic stabilization in forty-seven and open stabilization in twenty-seven cases. The arthroscopic procedure involved two Suretac II labral reattachment and capsular shrinkage using electrocautery. The open procedure involved a Bristow/Latarjet procedure using a delto-pectoral approach and reattachment of coracoid process using a single malleolar screw.

Ten patients had a recurrence of instability. Of these two had significant trauma, one each group. Of the remaining eight, six were in the arthroscopic group and two in the open procedure group. In the arthroscopic recurrence group, three had a large Hill Sach’s lesion and one a large Bankart Lesion. In the open procedure group, both had a large Hill Sach’s and Bankart’s lesion. This gave a recurrence rate of 12.7% in the arthroscopic group and 7.4% in the open group.

A large Hill-Sach lesion > 2mm is a contra-indication to arthroscopic repair and the optimum stabilisation procedure is an open repair (Bristow/Laterjet). Without a significant Hill-Sach’s lesion an arthroscopic Suretac II labral re-attachment is an effective way of achieving stability. Those who have a large Hill-Sach and significant Bankart’s lesion may need a combination of Bankart’s repair plus an extra-articular procedure like a Bristow/Laterjet procedure.