To identify the rate and risk factors of posterior labral involvement in operatively managed Bankart lesions and assess the effectiveness of MRI arthrogram for preoperative identification of such injury patterns.A consecutive cohort of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair were retrospectively reviewed. All subjects underwent a prearthroscopy MRI arthrogram. Operative findings were used as the gold standard for posterior labral tear extension. Patient demographic and surgical data were then analyzed to identify independent factors associated with the presence of concomitant posterior labral injury.Of 124 patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart stabilization, 23 (19%) were noted to demonstrate posterior labral injury on arthroscopic evaluation. Factors associated with injury to the posterior labrum included those sustaining two or fewer dislocations events (P =.001), an earlier average presentation (P = .001), and a reported "contact" mechanism of dislocation (P = .02). Posterior labral involvement did not correlate with surgical positioning (beach-chair versus lateral) or the need for revision surgery. On the basis of review of preoperative imaging, MRI arthrogram demonstrated a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 95% for detection of posterior labral injury.Posterior propagation of Bankart lesions is relatively common following shoulder dislocations, with a rate of 18.5%. Risk factors for posterior labral extension include two or fewer dislocations, early presentation from the time of injury, and contact sports. On the basis of these findings, careful assessment of the posterior labrum on MRI arthrogram may reveal the majority, but not all, of these lesions.Level III, retrospective case-controlled study.
Category: Midfoot/Forefoot; Hindfoot Introduction/Purpose: Accurate characterization of foot type can facilitate identification of patients at risk for different foot disorders and direct operative treatment. Foot type can be determined qualitatively with visual assessment and quantitatively using arch index (AI), calcaneal pitch (CP), Meary's angle (MA), and foot posture index (FPI). Agreement between various foot typing measures is unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement between different measurements of foot type. We hypothesized that quantitative measures would have better interrater reliability than qualitative measures, and that visual assessment of foot type would be strongly correlated with radiographic assessment. Methods: Bilateral foot photographs were acquired from 92 asymptomatic participants (50 men, 42 women, mean age of 43.3+- 18.6 years) to assess photographic arch type (PAT) and photographic foot posture (PFP). Hindfoot alignment and lateral radiographs were acquired of each foot to assess calcaneal pitch (CP), Meary's angle (MA), x-ray foot posture (XFP), and x-ray arch type (XAT). Photographs and radiographs were assessed by five reviewers in random order. Foot Posture Index (FPI) was determined through manual exam. Arch Index (AI) was measured on lightbox images. Interrater reliability was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and Kendall's W for categorical variables. Correlations between measures and sensitivity/specificity were assessed using calcaneal pitch as the reference standard with cavus feet >= 26 degrees and planus feet measuring <= 19 degrees. Results: Interrater reliability of XFP (W=0.522), XAT (W=0.676), PAT (W=0.831), PFP (W=0.612) ranged from strong to extremely strong. Interrater reliability of MA (ICC=0.711) and CP (ICC=0.804) were moderate and good. Correlations between foot arch measurements ranged from low to high (Table 1). Fair correlations were identified between foot posture measurements (r=0.356 to r=0.442). Overall, XAT had the greatest sensitivity and specificity for planus (0.68, 0.93) and normal feet (0.92, 0.62), and the greatest specificity for cavus feet (0.98). AI demonstrated the greatest sensitivity (0.47) for cavus feet. Compared to AI, photographs had superior sensitivity for identifying normal feet (0.73 vs. 0.43), the greatest sensitivity for identifying planus feet (0.54 vs. 0.06), and the greatest specificity for identifying cavus feet (0.95 vs. 0.71). Conclusion: Agreement between methods varied widely, suggesting that classification is dependent upon methodology and cutoff values selected. PAT had the highest interrater reliability, whereas correlation between XAT and PAT was moderate, suggesting that radiographs are needed to accurately assess the longitudinal arch.
Objectives: Recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization is a challenging complication that often manifests after return to sports. Many physicians use an arbitrary minimum of 5 months from surgery for clearance, although there is little data to support the use of temporal based criteria. Prior literature on ACL reconstruction has demonstrated overwhelming evidence for improved failure rates following return to sport after criteria based testing compared to time based clearance, but no such studies to date have evaluated the use of objective return to play testing protocols on recurrence rates following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. We have prior presented on a return to sport criteria-based protocol that has demonstrated that a majority of athletes have residual strength and functional limitations which would preclude them from full clearance and return to play at 6 months postoperatively. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of a return to play criteria-based testing protocol on recurrent instability following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. We hypothesized that patients who meet return to play criteria would have less recurrent instability compared to those who did not undergo the testing and were cleared to return based on time from surgery. Methods: Forty eight patients (group I) who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization surgery from 2016 to 2018 with minimum 1 year follow up and were referred during postoperative rehabilitation for functional testing to evaluate readiness for return to sport were included in this retrospective case controlled study. These patients were compared to a control group of forty-eight historical consecutive cases (group II) who did not undergo return to sports testing and were cleared for sports after a minimum of 5 months following surgery. Patients with critical glenoid bone loss or off-track Hill-Sach’s lesions necessitating a remplissage or bone augmentation procedure were excluded from the study. ANOVA and independent t test were performed to analyze recurrence shoulder instability rates defined as dislocations or subluxation symptoms. Results: There was no difference between groups with regard to age ( p=0.64), sex (p=0.24), hand dominance (p=0.84), or participation in contact sports (p=0.66). Patients who underwent return to play criteria based testing protocol had a statistically significant difference in the rate of recurrent shoulder instability (10% vs. 31%, odds ratio=3.9, p<0.001). Conclusion: Athletes who undergo an objective return to play criteria based testing protocol have lower rates of recurrent instability following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization surgery than those cleared by time from surgery. Based on our findings, we strongly recommend the utilization of a criteria based testing protocol for return to play following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization, particularly for sports that have known higher risks of recurrence.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)