Rotator cuff repairs seek to achieve adequate tendon fixation and to secure the fixation during the process of biological healing. Currently, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become the gold standard. One of the earliest defined techniques is single-row repair but the inadequacy of single-row repair to precisely restore the anatomical footprint as well as the significant rates of retear especially in large tears have led surgeons to seek other techniques. Double-row repair techniques, which have been developed in response to these concerns, have various modifications like the number and placement of anchors and suture configurations.When the literature is reviewed, it is possible to say that double-row repairs demonstrate superior biomechanical properties. In regard to retear rates, both double row and transosseous equivalent (TOE) techniques have also yielded more favorable outcomes compared to single-row repair. But the clinical results are conflicting and more studies have to be conducted. However, it is more probable that superior structural integrity will yield better structural and functional results in the long run. TOE repair technique is regarded as promising in terms of better biomechanics and healing since it provides better footprint contact. Knotless TOE structures are believed to reduce impingement on the medial side of tendons and thus aid in tendon nutrition; however, there are not enough studies about its effectiveness.It is important to optimize the costs without endangering the treatment of the patients. We believe that the arthroscopic TOE repair technique will yield superior results in regard to both repair integrity and functionality, especially with tears larger than 3 cm. Although defining the pattern of the tear is one of the most important guiding steps when selecting the repair technique, the surgeon should not forget to evaluate every patient individually for tendon healing capacity and functional expectations.

No abstract

Background Fifth metacarpal fractures are the most common fractures of the hand. These fractures are generally treated with conservative methods. The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of two conservative treatment methods, functional metacarpal splint(FMS) and ulnar gutter splint(UGS), for the treatment of fifth metacarpal neck fractures. Methods A prospective comparative study was designed to assess the conservative treatment of isolated and closed stable fractures of the fifth metacarpal neck. In total, 58 patients were included in the study and were treated with FMS or UGS after fracture reduction in a consecutive order. Angulation, shortening and functional outcome ( Quick DASH scores and grip strengths) were evaluated at the 2nd and 6th months. Results Forty patients returned for follow-up. Twenty-two patients were treated with FMS, and 18 patients were treated with UGS. The average age was 28 years (SD ± 12, range;18–43) in the FMS group and 30 years (SD ± 14, range;18–58) in the UGS group. After reduction, significant correction was achieved in both groups, but the average angulation was lower in the FMS group(16 ± 7) compared with the UGS group (21 ± 8)( p = 0.043). However, this better initial reduction in FMS group(16 ± 7) could not be maintained in the 1st month follow-up (21 ± 5) ( p = 0.009). In the FMS group, the improvement in Quick DASH scores between the 2nd and 6th month follow-up was significant ( p = 0.003) but not in the UGS group( p = 0.075). When the expected grip strengths were calculated, the FMS group reached the expected strength values at the 2nd month follow-up, whereas the UGS group still exhibited significantly lower grip strength at the 2nd month follow-up( p = 0.008). However, at the end of the 6th month follow-up, both groups exhibited similar reduction, Quick DASH and grip strength values. Conclusions In stable 5th metacarpal neck fractures, FMS is adequate to prevent loss of reduction and yields faster improvement in clinical scores with earlier gain of normal grip strength compared with UGS. However, in the long term, both FMS and UGS methods yield similar radiological and clinical outcomes. Patient comfort and compliance may be better with FMS due to less joint restriction, and these findings should be considered when deciding the treatment method. Trial registration ISRCTN79534571 The date of registration: 01/04/2019 Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic, II.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the complication rates and clinical results of labral repair with two suture anchors and capsular plication, and labral repair with three suture anchor fixation in artroscopic Bankart surgery.MethodsSixty-nine patients (60 males, 9 females; mean age: 28.2 ± 7.8 years (range: 16–50)) who had undergone arthroscopic repair of a labral Bankart lesion were evaluated. Group A underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair with three knotless suture anchors, while group B underwent a modified arthroscopic Bankart repair with two knotless suture anchors and an additional capsular plication procedure. The mean follow-up was 52.5 months. Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), Rowe Score (RS), modified UCLA Shoulder Score (mUSS) and range of motion (ROM) were used as outcome measures.ResultsIn both groups, a significant improvement was detected in functional outcomes at postoperative last follow-up compared to the preoperative period. No statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05) in clinical scores (CSS; Group A: 89.7, Group B: 80.2) (RS; Group A: 88.2, Group B: 80.2) (mUSS; Group A: 26.3, Group B: 25.7) external rotation loss (At neutral; Group A: 4.5°, Group B: 5.2°. At abduction; Group A: 4.3°, Group B: 5.7°) and recurrence rates (Group A: 13.3%, Group B: 20.8%). Although the difference was not statistically significant, the recurrence rate was higher in group B (20.8%), compared to group A (13.3%), despite the shorter average follow-up time of group B (p = 0.417).ConclusionsArthroscopic repair of labral Bankart lesions with both techniques showed good functional outcomes and stability at the latest follow-up. Higher recurrence rate despite the shorter average follow-up of group B suggests that two anchor usage might not be sufficient for Bankart repair in terms of better stability and less recurrence risk.Level of evidenceLevel III, Therapeutic Study.