Hiemstra Laurie A, Sasyniuk Treny M, Mohtadi Nicholas G H, Fick Gordon H
FRCS(C Banff Sport Medicine, PO Box 1300, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Am J Sports Med. 2008 May;36(5):861-7. doi: 10.1177/0363546508314429. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
With current techniques, the main difference between arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization is the violation of the subscapularis tendon. No studies have looked at strength differences of internal and external rotation between these groups.
Internal rotation strength deficits will exist in patients having undergone an open shoulder stabilization procedure compared with an arthroscopic one.
Piggy-back randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Forty-eight patients (38 men, 10 women), average age, 30.6 years (range, 18-59 years), were randomized to either open (n = 24) or arthroscopic (n = 24) shoulder stabilization. Rehabilitation protocols were standardized. At a mean follow-up of 19.4 months (range, 12-36 months) from surgery, patients underwent isokinetic strength testing (concentric and eccentric peak moments at 60 deg/s and 180 deg/s). Measurements were body-mass normalized. Primary outcome was internal rotation strength at 60 deg/s.
There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, gender, or operative limb. There were no statistical differences between operative groups for the primary outcome of internal concentric strength at 60 deg/s (mean difference, 0.011 N.m/kg; 95% confidence interval, -0.043 to 0.066; P = .677) or secondary strength measures. When compared with the contralateral limb, strength deficits existed for both surgical groups for both internal and external rotation. Regression analysis demonstrated that arm dominance is a factor in strength deficits.
The results of this trial suggest there are no side-to-side isokinetic strength deficits between patients having an open stabilization using a subscapularis splitting approach versus arthroscopic stabilization for anterior traumatic shoulder instability at 1 year after surgery. Strength deficits exist in both groups when compared with the contralateral limb.
就目前的技术而言,关节镜下与开放性肩关节稳定术的主要区别在于肩胛下肌腱是否受到破坏。尚无研究关注这两组之间内旋和外旋力量的差异。
与接受关节镜下肩关节稳定术的患者相比,接受开放性肩关节稳定术的患者会存在内旋力量不足。
背驮式随机对照试验;证据等级,1级。
48例患者(38例男性,10例女性),平均年龄30.6岁(范围18 - 59岁),被随机分为开放性(n = 24)或关节镜下(n = 24)肩关节稳定术组。康复方案标准化。在术后平均19.4个月(范围12 - 36个月)时,患者接受等速力量测试(60°/s和180°/s时的向心和离心峰值力矩)。测量值进行了体重标准化。主要结局指标是60°/s时的内旋力量。
两组在年龄、性别或手术侧别方面无显著差异。手术组之间在60°/s时内旋向心力量这一主要结局指标(平均差异,0.011N·m/kg;95%置信区间,-0.043至0.066;P = 0.。677)或次要力量指标方面无统计学差异。与对侧肢体相比,两个手术组的内旋和外旋力量均存在不足。回归分析表明,优势手臂是力量不足的一个因素。
本试验结果表明,对于创伤性前肩关节不稳,采用肩胛下肌劈开入路的开放性稳定术与关节镜下稳定术的患者在术后1年时,等速力量方面不存在双侧差异。与对侧肢体相比,两组均存在力量不足。