PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Bankart lesion is one of the most common lesions of the glenohumeral joint. Several double-row suture methods were reported for Bankart repair, which could provide more stability, yet more motion limitation and complications. Therefore, we introduced a new double-row Bankart repair technique, key point double-row suture which used one anchor in the medial line. The purpose of this article is to investigate the clinical outcomes of this new method and to compare it with single-row suture.
METHODS: Seventy-eight patients receiving key point double-row suture or single-row suture from October 2010 to June 2014 were collected retrospectively. The basic information including gender, age, dominant arm, and number of episodes of instability was collected. Before surgery, the glenoid bone loss was measured from the CT scan. The visual analogue scale, American shoulder and elbow surgeons, the University of California at Los Angeles shoulder scale, and subjective shoulder value were valued before surgery and at the last follow-up.
RESULTS: Forty-four patients (24 patients receiving single-row suture and 20 patients receiving key point double-row suture) were followed up successfully. The follow-up period was 9.2 ± 1.1 years (range, 7.8-11.4 years). At the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected for any of the clinical scores. The recurrence rate was 12.5% for the single-row group and 10% for the double-row group, respectively (p = 0.795) 14 patients (31.8%) in the single-row group and nine patients (26.5%) in the double-row group were tested for active range of motion. A statistically significant difference was found only for the internal rotation at 90° abduction (48.9° for single-row and 76.7° for key point double-row, p = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: The key point double-row sutures for Bankart lesions could achieve similar long-term outcomes compared with single-row suture, and one medial anchor did not result in a limited range of motion. The low recurrence rate and previous biomechanical results also indicate the key point double-row suture is a reliable method.
METHODS: Seventy-eight patients receiving key point double-row suture or single-row suture from October 2010 to June 2014 were collected retrospectively. The basic information including gender, age, dominant arm, and number of episodes of instability was collected. Before surgery, the glenoid bone loss was measured from the CT scan. The visual analogue scale, American shoulder and elbow surgeons, the University of California at Los Angeles shoulder scale, and subjective shoulder value were valued before surgery and at the last follow-up.
RESULTS: Forty-four patients (24 patients receiving single-row suture and 20 patients receiving key point double-row suture) were followed up successfully. The follow-up period was 9.2 ± 1.1 years (range, 7.8-11.4 years). At the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected for any of the clinical scores. The recurrence rate was 12.5% for the single-row group and 10% for the double-row group, respectively (p = 0.795) 14 patients (31.8%) in the single-row group and nine patients (26.5%) in the double-row group were tested for active range of motion. A statistically significant difference was found only for the internal rotation at 90° abduction (48.9° for single-row and 76.7° for key point double-row, p = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: The key point double-row sutures for Bankart lesions could achieve similar long-term outcomes compared with single-row suture, and one medial anchor did not result in a limited range of motion. The low recurrence rate and previous biomechanical results also indicate the key point double-row suture is a reliable method.
摘要：
目的：Bankart病变是肱骨关节最常见的病变之一。据报道，Bankart修复的几种双排缝合方法，可以提供更多的稳定性，还有更多的运动限制和并发症。因此,我们引入了一种新的双行Bankart修复技术，关键点双排缝合线，在中线使用一个锚。本文的目的是研究这种新方法的临床效果，并将其与单排缝线进行比较。
方法：回顾性收集2010年10月至2014年6月行关键点双排缝合或单排缝合的78例患者。基本信息包括性别、年龄,优势臂,并收集了不稳定的发作次数。手术前,通过CT扫描测量关节盂骨丢失。视觉模拟量表，美国肩肘外科医生,加州大学洛杉矶分校的肩秤，在手术前和最后一次随访时评估主观肩价值。
结果：44例患者（24例接受单排缝合，20例接受关键点双排缝合）均获成功随访。随访期为9.2±1.1年(范围，7.8-11.4年）。在最后一次随访中，所有临床评分均未检测到显著差异.单行组复发率为12.5%,双行组复发率为10%,分别(p=0.795)对单排组14例(31.8%)和双排组9例(26.5%)的患者进行了活动范围测试.仅在90°外展时的内旋差异有统计学意义（单排为48.9°，双排为76.7°，p=0.033)。
结论：与单行缝合相比，Bankart病变的关键点双行缝合可获得相似的长期结果，一个内侧锚并没有导致有限的运动范围。低复发率和先前的生物力学结果也表明关键点双排缝合是一种可靠的方法。
方法：回顾性收集2010年10月至2014年6月行关键点双排缝合或单排缝合的78例患者。基本信息包括性别、年龄,优势臂,并收集了不稳定的发作次数。手术前,通过CT扫描测量关节盂骨丢失。视觉模拟量表，美国肩肘外科医生,加州大学洛杉矶分校的肩秤，在手术前和最后一次随访时评估主观肩价值。
结果：44例患者（24例接受单排缝合，20例接受关键点双排缝合）均获成功随访。随访期为9.2±1.1年(范围，7.8-11.4年）。在最后一次随访中，所有临床评分均未检测到显著差异.单行组复发率为12.5%,双行组复发率为10%,分别(p=0.795)对单排组14例(31.8%)和双排组9例(26.5%)的患者进行了活动范围测试.仅在90°外展时的内旋差异有统计学意义（单排为48.9°，双排为76.7°，p=0.033)。
结论：与单行缝合相比，Bankart病变的关键点双行缝合可获得相似的长期结果，一个内侧锚并没有导致有限的运动范围。低复发率和先前的生物力学结果也表明关键点双排缝合是一种可靠的方法。
