Godino M, Vides M, Benítez N, Guerado E

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 177-181
PDF size: 152.03 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to compare two patient cohorts with Bankart lesion, one with intraarticular drainage after surgery and another group without drainage. Material and methods: We designed a study cohort for patients with Bankart repair due to relapsing shoulder dislocation; they underwent arthroscopy and were stabilized with suture anchors; intraarticular drainage was used in one group and no drainage was used in a control patient cohort. Thirty-one consecutive patients were operated by the same team. All patients were evaluated at the office using the Rowe, Constant and UCLA scales. The statistical tests used included chi-square, the student-t test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test (non-parametric version). Results: The UCLA median value was 35 (34.5 - 35) in group B and 33 (32.5 - 35) in group A, with p = 0.13. The Rowe test score was 100 (95;100) in group B and 100 in group A (85;100), with p = 0.913. The Constant test score was 96 (88.8 - 98) in group B and 96 (90.5 - 100) in group A with p = 0.535 and no differences. Discussion: This comparative study includes two groups that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, one with drainage and another one without drainage. Good results were obtained in both groups. In this study the placement of a postoperative intraarticular drainage did not improve clinical results, as no statistically significant differences were observed between both groups.

REFERENCES

1. Bankart AS: Recurrent or habitual dislocation of the shoulder-Joint, Br Med J 1923; 2: 1132-3.

2. Mahiroğulları M, Ozkan H, Akyüz M, Uğraş AA, Güney A, Kuşkucu M: Comparison between the results of open and arthroscopic repair of isolated traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2010; 44: 180-5.

3. Petrera M, Patella V, Patella S, Theodoropoulos J: A meta-analysis of open versus arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18: 1742-7.

4. Development Core Team (2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL.

5. Freedman KB, Smith AP, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr: Open Bankart repair versus arthroscopic repair with transglenoid sutures or bioabsorbable tacks for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32: 1520-7.

6. Castagna A, Markopoulos N, Conti M, Rose GD, Papadakou E, Garofalo R: Arthroscopic bankart suture-anchor repair: radiological and clinical outcome at minimum 10 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 2012-6.

7. Smith SG, Shapiro MS: The use of drains for outpatient orthopaedic surgeries: Safety and efficacy. Ambulatory Surgery 1997; 5: 145-7.

8. Beer KJ, Lombardi Jr. AV, Mallory TH, Vaughn BK: The efficacy of suction drains after routine total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1991; 73A: 584-7.

9. Ritter MA, Keating PM: Closed wound drainage in total hip or total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1994; 76A: 35-8.

10. Cobb JP: Why use drains? J Bone and Joint Surg 1990; 72B: 993-5.

11. Gartsman GM: Closed wound drainage in shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1997; 6(3): 288-90.

12. McCormack RG, Greenhow RJ, Fogagnolo F, Shrier I: Intra-articular drain versus no drain after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Arthroscopy 2006; 22: 889-93.