Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Open repair effective in reducing recurrence rates .
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):273 Arthroscopy. 2007 Feb;23(2):118-23.76 patients with first-time traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder joint were randomized to either receive open Bankart surgical repair, or conservative treatment. This study aimed to compare rates of recurrence between treatments. The results at both the two year and ten year follow up periods indicated that open repair reduced the recurrence rate of shoulder dislocations in comparison to conservative treatment.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
1/4
Randomization
2/4
Outcome Measurements
3/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Dislocations of the shoulder joint are the most frequent type of dislocations in the body. With traumatic anterior dislocation, there is a high risk recurrence; however, it is still uncertain if surgical repair of Bankart lesions produces a significant reduction in recurrence compared to conservative treatment. Recurrent instability of the shoulder joint can negatively affect one's performance in daily activities as well as sports. This study is of importance, as there have been few long-term, high quality studies looking at surgical versus conservative treatments.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Does open Bankart surgical repair of lesions reduce the rate of recurrence of dislocations, as compared to conservative treatment, in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations, over a ten year follow up period?
- At the two year follow up period, 1 of 37 (2.7%) in the Open Bankart repair group had a recurrent anterior dislocation whereas this was present in 21 of 39 (53.8%) of those in the non-surgical group (p=0.0011). All of these patients who had re-dislocations had Baker type 2 or 3 lesions.
- No significant difference was seen in remaining non-dislocators between both groups with respect to Constant scores.
- Of the 36 patients in the Bankart repair group without dislocations, 7% had positive apprehension test, and 4% had a grade 1 load-and-shift test.
- Out of those who did not sustain a redislocation in the nonsurgical group, 39% had a positive apprehension test, and 39% had a grade 1 or 2 load-and-shift test.
- 80% with Type 2 lesions, and 53% with Type 3 lesions (in nonsurgical group) sustained a recurrence within two years following trauma.
- At the ten year follow up period (completed telephone interview and questionnaire), 9% of patients in repair group had recurrent dislocation. When grading was completed using the Oxford Shoulder Score, 53% had excellent results and 17% had good results.
- In the nonsurgical group, 62% patients sustained recurrent anterior dislocation. 74% had unsatisfactory results due to instability or pain (Oxford scale) at the ten year follow up period.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
Open Bankart repair as treatment for anterior dislocations of the shoulder joint, yielded lower rates of recurrence, as compared to conservative treatment. These results were seen at both the two year and ten year follow up periods.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
The results of this study indicated that open repair was a more effective treatment as compared to a conservative method in reducing rate of redislocation, in a population of young individuals with anterior shoulder dislocation.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
