Arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet as a primary operative treatment for traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males : a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Objectives To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland. Participants 122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16-25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised. Interventions Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI. Results 91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures. Conclusions Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.Peer reviewe

Arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet as a primary operative treatment for traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Objectives: To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males.Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting: Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland.Participants: 122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16-25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised.Interventions: Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI.Results: 91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures.Conclusions: Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.e counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.\nNCT01998048.</p

Good safety practice in a randomized controlled trial (CadColdEx) involving increased cardiac workload in patients with coronary artery disease

Abstract Background Methodological information acknowledging safety of cardiac patients in controlled medical experiments are lacking. The descriptive report presents one good practice for considering safety in a randomized controlled study involving augmented cardiovascular strain among persons with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods The patients were pre-selected by a cardiologist according to strictly defined selection criteria. Further confirmation of eligibility included screening of health. In addition, assessments of physical capacity by a graded bicycle ergometer test were implemented and safety monitored by an exercise physiologist and medical doctor. In this context, an emergency simulation was also carried out. A total of 18 CAD patients each underwent four different experimental interventions where either temperature (+ 22 °C and − 15 °C) and the level of exercise (rest and brisk walking) were employed for 30 min in random order (72 experiments). Baseline (20 min) and follow-up (60 min) measurements were conducted resting at + 22 °C. ECG, and brachial blood pressure were measured and perceived exertion and symptoms of chest pain inquired throughout the experiments. An emergency nurse was responsible for the health monitoring and at least two persons followed the patient throughout the experiment. A medical doctor was available on call for consultation. The termination criteria followed the generally accepted international guidelines for exercise testing and were planned prior to the experiments. Results The exercise test simulation revealed risks requiring changes in the study design and emergency response. The cardiovascular responses of the controlled trials were related to irregular HR, ST-depression or post-exercise hypotension. These were expected and the majority could be dealt on site by the research personnel and on call consultation. Only one patient was encouraged to seek for external health care consultation. Conclusions Appropriate prospective design is a key to safe implementation of controlled studies involving cardiac patients and stimulation of cardiovascular function. This includes careful selection of participants, sufficient and knowledgeable staff, as well as identifying possible emergency situations and the required responses. Trial registration ClinicalTrials ID: NCT02855905

Good safety practice in a randomized controlled trial (CadColdEx) involving increased cardiac workload in patients with coronary artery disease

Abstract Background: Methodological information acknowledging safety of cardiac patients in controlled medical experiments are lacking. The descriptive report presents one good practice for considering safety in a randomized controlled study involving augmented cardiovascular strain among persons with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: The patients were pre-selected by a cardiologist according to strictly defined selection criteria. Further confirmation of eligibility included screening of health. In addition, assessments of physical capacity by a graded bicycle ergometer test were implemented and safety monitored by an exercise physiologist and medical doctor. In this context, an emergency simulation was also carried out. A total of 18 CAD patients each underwent four different experimental interventions where either temperature (+ 22 °C and − 15 °C) and the level of exercise (rest and brisk walking) were employed for 30 min in random order (72 experiments). Baseline (20 min) and follow-up (60 min) measurements were conducted resting at + 22 °C. ECG, and brachial blood pressure were measured and perceived exertion and symptoms of chest pain inquired throughout the experiments. An emergency nurse was responsible for the health monitoring and at least two persons followed the patient throughout the experiment. A medical doctor was available on call for consultation. The termination criteria followed the generally accepted international guidelines for exercise testing and were planned prior to the experiments. Results: The exercise test simulation revealed risks requiring changes in the study design and emergency response. The cardiovascular responses of the controlled trials were related to irregular HR, ST-depression or post-exercise hypotension. These were expected and the majority could be dealt on site by the research personnel and on call consultation. Only one patient was encouraged to seek for external health care consultation. Conclusions: Appropriate prospective design is a key to safe implementation of controlled studies involving cardiac patients and stimulation of cardiovascular function. This includes careful selection of participants, sufficient and knowledgeable staff, as well as identifying possible emergency situations and the required responses. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials ID: NCT02855905