Cole B J, Warner J J
Department of Orthopaedics, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Clin Sports Med. 2000 Jan;19(1):19-48. doi: 10.1016/s0278-5919(05)70294-5.
After more than 15 years of experience, arthroscopic shoulder stabilization is becoming less controversial. Historically, recurrence rates following arthroscopic stabilization have been higher than with open stabilization. Although a negligible advantage may exist in terms of expedited postoperative rehabilitation and improved postoperative recovery of motion, critics suggest that its use in contact athletes be limited. The indications for arthroscopic stabilization are expanding, in part, because of improved understanding of the pathophysiology of shoulder instability. Understanding the mechanism of recurrent instability following arthroscopic stabilization offers clues to how physicians can prevent unsatisfactory results in the future. With newer instrumentation and the ability to thermally treat capsular tissue, coexisting pathology, such as capsular plastic deformation, rotator interval lesions, and unrecognized intra-articular pathology, can now be addressed arthroscopically. The judicious use of these techniques is warranted until long-term study results become available. Ideal patients for arthroscopic Bankart repair have a discrete Bankart lesion; a robust, well-developed IGHL; no significant capsular laxity or intraligamentous injury; and an absence of concomitant intra-articular pathology. Additional findings on MR imaging or CT evidence of a discrete labral lesion and pure unidirectional anterior instability during EUA are also good prognostic indicators for arthroscopic Bankart repair. Arthroscopic criteria that render patients less appropriate for an arthroscopic repair include capsular injury, capsular laxity, a bony Bankart lesion, glenohumeral arthritis, and a rotator cuff tear. The authors' believe that either absent or patulous, poorly developed glenohumeral ligaments represent a poor prognostic indicator for a successful outcome following standard arthroscopic Bankart repair. Individuals with poor-quality tissue are more predictably managed using open capsulorrhaphy. Patients with pathologic ligamentous laxity in the absence of a Bankart lesion or any apparent intraligamentous injury to the IGHL are also good candidates for treatment with an open capsulorrhaphy. Findings determined from a thorough physical examination, EUA, and the pathology appreciated during diagnostic arthroscopy help to appropriately choose the surgical procedure that effectively addresses pathology in patients who present with recurrent traumatic anterior instability. Patient preferences and surgical experience are important determinants of procedure selection, and current arthroscopic techniques lack the versatility to uniformly address the entire spectrum of pathology that may be associated with traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Surgeons should always be prepared to convert to an open-stabilization technique if the arthroscopic technique is deficient in addressing all pathology identified at the time of surgery.
经过15年多的实践,关节镜下肩关节稳定术的争议越来越小。从历史上看,关节镜下稳定术后的复发率高于开放稳定术。尽管在加快术后康复和改善术后活动恢复方面可能存在微不足道的优势,但批评者建议限制其在接触性运动员中的使用。关节镜下稳定术的适应症正在扩大,部分原因是对肩关节不稳定病理生理学的认识有所提高。了解关节镜下稳定术后复发性不稳定的机制,为医生未来如何预防不满意的结果提供了线索。随着更新的器械以及对关节囊组织进行热治疗的能力,诸如关节囊塑性变形、旋转间隔损伤和未被识别的关节内病变等并存的病理情况现在可以通过关节镜进行处理。在获得长期研究结果之前,明智地使用这些技术是必要的。关节镜下Bankart修复的理想患者有离散的Bankart损伤;强壮、发育良好的下盂肱韧带;无明显的关节囊松弛或韧带内损伤;并且没有并发的关节内病变。磁共振成像(MR成像)上的其他发现或关节镜检查时离散的盂唇损伤和单纯单向前向不稳定的CT证据也是关节镜下Bankart修复的良好预后指标。使患者不太适合进行关节镜修复的关节镜标准包括关节囊损伤、关节囊松弛、骨性Bankart损伤、盂肱关节炎和肩袖撕裂。作者认为,盂肱韧带缺失、松弛或发育不良是标准关节镜下Bankart修复术后成功结果的不良预后指标。组织质量差的个体采用开放关节囊缝合术更可预测地进行处理。在没有Bankart损伤或下盂肱韧带任何明显韧带内损伤的情况下出现病理性韧带松弛的患者也是开放关节囊缝合术治疗的良好候选者。通过全面的体格检查、关节镜检查以及诊断性关节镜检查期间所认识到的病理情况,有助于适当选择能够有效处理复发性创伤性前向不稳定患者病理情况的手术方法。患者的偏好和手术经验是手术方法选择的重要决定因素,并且当前的关节镜技术缺乏统一处理可能与创伤性前向肩关节不稳定相关的整个病理范围的通用性。如果关节镜技术在处理手术时发现的所有病理情况方面存在不足,外科医生应始终准备好转换为开放稳定技术。