0
Scientific Articles   |    
Arthroscopic Compared with Open Repairs for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder InstabilityA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature
Tim R. Lenters, MD1; Amy K. Franta, MD2; Fredric M. Wolf, PhD1; Seth S. Leopold, MD1; Frederick A. MatsenIII, MD1
1 Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine (T.R.L., S.S.L, andF.A.M. III), Box 356500, and Department of Medical Education and BiomedicalInformatics (F.M.W.), Box 357240, University of WashingtonMedical Center, 1959 N.E. Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail address for F.A. Matsen: matsen@u.washington.edu
2 Aspen Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation, 19475 West North Avenue, Suite201, Brookfield, WI 53045
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. A commercial entity (DePuy) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits of less than $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated. (DePuy endowed a Chair in Shoulder Research, which is currently held by F.A. Matsen III.)
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007 Feb 01;89(2):244-254. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01139
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Both arthroscopic and open surgical repairs are utilized for the management of anterior glenohumeral instability. To determine the evidence supporting the relative effectiveness of these two approaches, we conducted a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of all reports comparing arthroscopic and open repairs.

Methods: A systematic analysis of eighteen published or presented studies was performed to determine if there were significant differences between the two approaches with regard to recurrence (recurrent dislocation, subluxation, and/or apprehension and/or a reoperation for instability), return to work and/or sports, and Rowe scores. We also performed subgroup analysis to determine if the quality of the study or the arthroscopic technique influenced the results.

Results: We identified four randomized controlled trials, ten controlled clinical trials, and four other comparative studies. Results were influenced both by the quality of the study and by the arthroscopic technique. Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with open methods, arthroscopic repairs were associated with significantly higher risks of recurrent instability (p < 0.00001, relative risk = 2.37, 95% confidence interval = 1.66 to 3.38), recurrent dislocation (p < 0.0001, relative risk = 2.74, 95% confidence interval = 1.75 to 4.28), and a reoperation (p = 0.002, relative risk = 2.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.35 to 3.99). When considered alone, arthroscopic suture anchor techniques were associated with significantly higher risks of recurrent instability (p = 0.01, relative risk = 2.25, 95% confidence interval = 1.21 to 4.17) and recurrent dislocation (p = 0.004, relative risk = 2.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.35 to 4.92) than were open methods. Arthroscopic approaches were also less effective than open methods with regard to enabling patients to return to work and/or sports (p = 0.03, relative risk = 0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.77 to 0.99). On the other hand, analysis of the randomized clinical trials indicated that arthroscopic repairs were associated with higher Rowe scores (p = 0.002, standardized mean difference = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.16 to 0.70) than were open methods. Similarly, analysis of the arthroscopic suture anchor techniques alone showed the Rowe scores to be higher (p = 0.04, standardized mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.56) than those associated with open methods.

Conclusions: The available evidence indicates that arthroscopic approaches are not as effective as open approaches in preventing recurrent instability or enabling patients to return to work. Arthroscopic approaches resulted in better function as reflected by the Rowe scores in the randomized clinical trials. The study design and the arthroscopic technique had substantial effects on the results of the analysis.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    04/02/2014
    Illinois - Hinsdale Orthopaedics
    04/16/2014
    Connecticut - Yale University School of Medicine
    02/05/2014
    Oregon - The Center - Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Care and Research