Skip to content

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Arthroscopic InlayBristow Surgery With Screw Fixation vs Suture-button Fixation

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Arthroscopic InlayBristow Surgery With Screw Fixation vs Suture-button Fixation

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04460118
Enrollment
117
Registered
2020-07-07
Start date
2018-09-01
Completion date
2020-04-01
Last updated
2020-07-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Shoulder; Dislocation, Chronic

Brief summary

Retrospective comparative case-cohort study to investigate the efficacy of the modified arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet surgery and to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes using screw fixation vs suture-button fixation.

Detailed description

Background:Some studies have advocated the use of suture-button fixation during Bristow-latarjet surgery to reduce complications associated with screw fixation. However, these studies are not comparative studies, and their data are relatively incomplete. Purpose: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes using screw fixation vs suture-button fixation. Study Design: Retrospective comparative case-cohort study Methods: Patients who underwent the modified arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet surgery between June 2015 and February 2018 were selected. Shoulders were separated into two groups based on surgical fixation method. Radiological results on 3D CT scan and clinical results were assessed preoperatively, immediately after operation, and postoperatively at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and during the final follow-up.

Interventions

PROCEDUREBristow surgery fixed by the screw

Bristow surgery fixed by the screw

PROCEDUREBristow surgery fixed by the suture button

Bristow surgery fixed by the suture button

Sponsors

Peking University Third Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. a glenoid defect ≥10% 2. contact sport athletes with a glenoid defect \< 10% 3. failure after Bankart repair.

Exclusion criteria

1. epilepsy 2. multidirectional shoulder instability 3. concomitant other lesions including rotator cuff tear, symptomatic acromioclavicular joint pathology or pathological involvement of the long head of the biceps 4. Follow-up was less than 2 years or incomplete follow-up data.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
VAS for pain score2 years after surgeryThe visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score is the most commonly used to describe pain levels in patients, ranging from 0 to 10, with a higher score indicating more intense pain.
ASES score2 years after surgeryThe American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score is the most commonly used score to describe the function of patients' shoulder joints, ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the function of patients' shoulder joints.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Active shoulder ranges of motion2 years after surgeryinternal rotation at the side, and external and internal rotation at 90° of abduction,
Bone block positionimmediately after surgery.Bone block position was evaluated using postoperative CT scans.The ideal position of the bone block was defined as flush to the anterior glenoid rim in the axial view and 4 o'clock in the En face view. The bone block was considered too lateral if it went beyond the glenoid rim by more than 5 mm and it was judged to be too medial if it was medial to the rim by more than 5 mm.
Bone union3 months after surgery, 6 months after surgery, 1 year after surgery and 2 years after surgeryGraft union with the glenoid was assessed using postoperative CT scans. ''Bony union'' of the transplant was defined as no radiolucent zone; ''fibrous union,'' when the transplant had a radiolucent zone of less than 5 mm; and ''migration,'' when the zone was 5 mm or more.

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026