1.Acromioclavicular joint dislocation and concomitant labral lesions: a systematic review
Jad MANSOUR ; Joseph E NASSAR ; Michel ESTEPHAN ; Karl BOULOS ; Mohammad DAHER
Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2024;27(2):247-253
Acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations frequently co-occur with intra-articular glenohumeral pathologies. Few comprehensive studies have focused on labral tears specifically associated with AC joint trauma. This systematic review will address this gap. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar (pages 1–20) spanning from 1976 to May 19, 2023. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review, consisting of three retrospective studies and four case series. These studies collectively involved 1,044 patients, of whom 282 had concomitant labral lesions. The pooled prevalence of intra-articular labral injuries associated with acute AC joint dislocation was 27%. The prevalence of these labral lesions varied significantly between studies, ranging from 13.9% to 84.0% of patients, depending on the study and the grade of AC joint dislocation. Various types of labral tears were reported, with superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions being the most common. The prevalence of SLAP lesions ranged from 7.2% to 77.4%, with higher grades of AC joint dislocations often associated with a higher prevalence of SLAP tears. Moreover, grade V dislocations exhibited a complete correlation with SLAP tears. The studies yielded contradictory findings regarding older age and higher grades of AC joint dislocation as risk factors for concurrent labral lesions. This review underscores the frequent association between labral lesions and AC joint dislocations, particularly in cases of lower-grade injuries. Notably, SLAP lesions emerged as the predominant type of labral tear.
2.Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis
Jean TARCHICHI ; Mohammad DAHER ; Ali GHOUL ; Michel ESTEPHAN ; Karl BOULOS ; Jad MANSOUR
Hip & Pelvis 2024;36(3):168-178
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of labral repair with those of labral reconstruction. An electronic search strategy was conducted from 1986 until August 2023 using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20). The primary objectives included the postoperative clinical outcomes determined by the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). In addition, analysis of the rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the SF-12 (12-item shortform) was also performed. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion. Seventeen studies were relevant to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. A higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS (P=0.02) as well as a higher rate of revision arthroscopy was observed for labral repair (P=0.03). The remaining studied outcomes were comparable. Despite the greater predictability of success in the reconstruction group, conduct of additional studies will be required for evaluation of the benefits of such findings. In addition, labral reconstruction is more technically demanding than a labral repair.