Previously, we conducted a multi-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without remplissage. The end point for the randomized controlled trial was two years post-operative, providing support for the benefits of remplissage in the short term in reducing recurrent instability. The aim of this study was to compare the medium term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of patients previously randomized to have undergone isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) for the management of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. The rate of recurrent instability and instances of re-operation were examined. The original study was a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial with two 1:1 parallel groups with recruitment undertaken between 2011 and 2017. For this medium-term study, participants were reached for a telephone follow-up in 2020 and asked a series of standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation or reoperation that had occurred on their shoulder for which they were randomized. Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. “Failure” was defined as occurrence of a dislocation. “Recurrent instability” was defined as the participant reporting a dislocation or two or more occurences of subluxation greater than one year post-operative. All analyses were undertaken based on intention-to-treat whereby their data was analyzed based on the group to which they were originally allocated. One-hundred and eight participants were randomized of which 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to final follow-up was 49.3 for the NO REMP group and 53.8 for the REMP group. The rates of re-dislocation or failure were 8% (4/52) in the REMP group at an average of 23.8 months post-operative versus 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP at an average of 16.5 months post-operative. The rates of recurrent instability were 10% (5/52) in the REMP group at an average of 24 months post-operative versus 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group at an average of 19.5 months post-operative. Survival curves were significantly different favouring REMP in both scenarios. Arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with remplissage is an effective procedure in the treatment of patients with an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion and minimal glenoid bone loss (<15%). Patients can expect favourable rates of recurrent instability when compared with isolated Bankart repair at medium term follw-up.
Our primary objective was to compare healing rates in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for degenerative tears, with and without bone channeling. Our secondary objectives were to compare disease-specific quality of life and patient reported outcomes as measured by the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Constant score between groups. Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at three sites were randomized to receive either bone channeling augmentation or standard repair. Healing rates were determined by ultrasound at 6 and 24 months post operatively. WORC, ASES, and Constant scores were compared between groups at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post operatively. One hundred sixty-eight patients were recruited and randomized between 2013 to 2018. Statistically significant improvements occurred in both groups from pre-operative to all time points in all clinical outcome scores (p < 0 .0001). Intention to treat analysis revealed no statistical differences in healing rates between the two interventions at 24 months post-operative. No differences were observed in WORC, ASES or Constant scores at any time-point. This trial did not demonstrate superiority of intra-operative bone channeling in rotator cuff repair surgery at 24 months post-operative. Healing rates and patient-reported function and quality of life measures were similar between groups.
When compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US) performed by experienced users is an inexpensive tool that has good sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing rotator cuff (RC) tears. However, many practitioners are now utilizing in-office US with little to no formal training as an adjunct to clinical evaluation in the management of RC pathology. The purpose of our study was to determine if US without formal training is effective in managing patients with a suspected RC tear. This was a single centre prospective observational study. Five fellowship-trained surgeons each examined 50 participants referred for a suspected RC tear (n= 250). Patients were screened prior to the consultation and were included if ≥ 40 years old, had an MRI of their affected shoulder, had failed conservative treatment of at least 6 months, and had ongoing pain and disability. Patients were excluded if they had glenohumeral instability, evidence of major joint trauma, or osteonecrosis. After routine clinical exam, surgeons recorded their treatment plan (“No Surgery”, “Uncertain”, or “Surgery”). Surgeons then performed an in-office diagnostic US followed by an MRI and documented their treatment plan after each imaging study. Interrater reliability was analyzed using a kappa statistic to compare clinical to ultrasound findings and ultrasound findings to MRI, normal and abnormal categorization of biceps, supraspinatus, and subscapularis. Following clinical assessment, the treatment plan was recorded as “No Surgery” in 90 (36%), “Uncertain” in 96 (39%) of cases, “Surgery” in 61 (25%) cases, and incomplete in 3 (2%). In-office US allowed resolution of 68 (71%) of uncertain cases with 227 (88%) of patients having a definitive treatment plan. No patients in the “No Surgery” group had a change in treatment plan. After MRI, 16 (6%) patients in the “No Surgery” crossed-over to the “Surgery” group after identification of full-thickness tears, larger than expected tears or alternate pathology (e.g., labral tear). The combination of clinical examination and in-office US may be an effective method in the initial management of patients with suspected rotator cuff pathology. Using this method, a definitive diagnosis and treatment plan was established in 88% of patients with the remaining 12% requiring an MRI. A small percentage (6%) of patients with larger than expected full-thickness rotator cuff tears and/or alternate glenohumeral pathology (e.g., labral tear) would be missed at initial evaluation.
