HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/5/861    most recent 0363546508314429v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Request Reprints Google Scholar Articles by Hiemstra, L. A. Articles by Fick, G. H. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hiemstra, L. A. Articles by Fick, G. H. Related Collections Kinematics and kinetics Shoulder Arthroscopy

Shoulder Strength After Open Versus Arthroscopic Stabilization

Laurie A. Hiemstra, MD, PhD, FRCS(C)^,*, Treny M. Sasyniuk, MSc, Nicholas G. H. Mohtadi, MD, MSc, FRCS(C) and Gordon H. Fick, PhD

From Banff Sport Medicine, Banff, Alberta, Canada, the University of Calgary Sport Medicine Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and the Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

^* Address correspondence to Laurie A. Hiemstra, MD, PhD, FRCS(C), Banff Sport Medicine, PO Box 1300, Banff, Alberta, Canada TL1 1B3 (e-mail: hiemstra{at}banffsportmed.ca).

Background: 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.

Hypothesis: Internal rotation strength deficits will exist in patients having undergone an open shoulder stabilization procedure compared with an arthroscopic one.

Study Design: Piggy-back randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Key Words: shoulder instability • isokinetic strength • strength deficit • arthroscopy • stabilization