Search

Background: A multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) to Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) reported benefits of remplissage in reducing recurrent instability at 2 years postoperative. The ongoing benefits beyond this time point are yet to be explored. Purpose: To (1) compare medium-term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of these previously randomized patients undergoing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) to manage recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability; (2) examine the failure rate, overall recurrent instability, and reoperation rate. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Recruitment and randomization for the original randomized trial occurred between 2011 and 2017. Patients ≥14 years diagnosed with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with an engaging Hill-Sachs defect of any size were included. Those with a glenoid defect >15% were excluded. In 2020, participants were contacted by telephone and asked standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation, or reoperation on their study shoulder. "Failure" was defined as a redislocation, and "overall recurrent instability" was described as a redislocation or ≥2 subluxations. Descriptive statistics, relative risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were performed. Results: A total of 108 participants were randomized, of whom 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 the final follow-up was 49.3 and 53.8 months for the NO REMP and REMP groups, respectively. Failure rates were 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP group versus 8% (4/52) in the REMP group. Rates of overall recurrent instability were 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group versus 10% (5/52) in the REMP group. Survival curves were significantly different, favoring REMP in both scenarios. Conclusion: For the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative recurrent instability was observed with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage than with isolated Bankart repair at a medium-term follow-up (mean of 4 years). Patients who did not receive a remplissage experienced a failure (redislocated) earlier and had a higher rate of revision/reoperation than those who received a concomitant remplissage. Registration: NCT01324531 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Arthroscopy of the elbow has become a standard treatment option for many indications. The purpose of this article is to review literature concerning the use of arthroscopy for acute elbow injuries. Methods: The main medical literature databases were searched for articles on the use of elbow arthroscopy in acute injuries. A total of 13 publications relevant to the topic were included. The Coleman methodology score was used to assess the methods of each article. Results: All published articles have been case reports or retrospective case series. In fracture treatment, arthroscopy has been used in the treatment of displaced radial head, coronoid and capitellum fractures in adults and displaced radial neck and lateral humeral condyle fractures in children with good results. Endoscopic techniques have been used in distal biceps rupture and medial avulsion of the triceps. And also new techniques have been developed for the treatment of intra-articular soft-tissue lesions like rupture of the radial ulnohumeral ligament complex. One of the 13 studies analyzed was considered of good quality, 5 of moderate quality and all others of poor quality with inconsistent methodology and outcomes. Conclusion: The range of treatments using elbow arthroscopy in acute injuries is expanding and brings new controversies and challenges. Single reports of arthroscopically treated bony and soft-tissue injuries of the elbow showed satisfactory results. However, further randomized prospective studies are needed to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with open 'gold standard' techniques. Level of evidence: IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]