TABLE 2.
Patient Outcome Scoresa
| First Author | No. | Open Repair | Arthroscopic Repair | Outcome | Return to Sport |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bokor (1999)3 | 41 | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified |
| Smith (2014)30 | 1 | 1 | No complaints of pain or instability. Full range of motion on examination with full 5 of 5 rotator cuff strength. Stable posterior load-and-shift stress test with no apprehension. Postoperative MRI showed excellent reapproximation of the capsule and teres minor tendon 7 wk after surgery. | 1 of 1, full return to activity | |
| Chang (2014)7 | 4 | 3 | The 1 nonoperative patient had ongoing symptoms and rehab at the final 4-mo follow-up. | 3 of 3 returned to professional play | |
| Taljanovic (2011)32 | 4 | 4 | 4 of 4 had full cuff strength and no instability or apprehension on examination. | 4 of 4 returned to NCAA or professional volleyball for at least 2 y | |
| Provencher (2014)22 | 23 | 14 | 9 | WOSI: preoperative, 54%; postoperative, 17%; SANE: preoperative, 50%; postoperative, 87%. | 21 of 23 (91%) demonstrated satisfaction and a return to full activity |
| Bhatia (2013)1 | 7 | 7 | Normal clinical examination results and no functional limitations at final follow-up. WOSI: preoperative, 52%, postoperative, 1%; OSIS: preoperative, 50; postoperative, 12; Rowe: 95 of 100, postoperative. | ||
| Huberty (2006)12 | 6 | 6 | No recurrent instability at final follow-up. UCLA shoulder score: preoperative, 18.3; postoperative, 33.0. | ||
| Kon (2005)13 | 3 | 3 | Return to full activity and full patient satisfaction at final follow-up time. No recurrent instability or apprehension. Rowe: postoperative, 100, 100, and 92. | 3 of 3 | |
| Chhabra (2004)8 | 1 | 1 | No pain or instability at final follow-up with return to all activity. | 1 of 1 | |
| Schippinger (2001)26 | 1 | 1 | No complaints of pain or instability. | 1 of 1 returned to international-level competition | |
| Shah (2010)27 | 1 | 1 | Full return to strength and range of motion. Patient returned to competitive play, improving his player efficiency rating and leading the league in scoring upon return to play. | 1 of 1 | |
| Gehrmann (2003)10 | 1 | 1 | No recurrence reported at 13 mo postoperation. Patient returned to overhead throwing and sport without complication. | 1 of 1 | |
| Rhee (2007)23 | 6 | 5 | 1 | No reported dislocation following operation. No patient reporting discomfort or disability to daily function or sports activity. Rowe: preoperative, 24; postoperative, 92; Constant score: preoperative, 72; postoperative, 87. | 2 of 2 professional athletes returned to play |
| Wolf (1995)34 | 6 | 2 | 4 | All patients pain free and free of instability at final follow-up. | 6 of 6 |
| Oberlander (1996)20 | 3 | 2 | All patients symptom free at final follow-up, including 1 treated nonoperatively. | 1 of 1 | |
| Rothberg (2009)25 | 2 | 2 | Both patients stable and pain free at 1-y follow-up. | 2 of 2 | |
| Warner (1997)33 | 1 | 1 | No pain or instability at 26-mo final follow-up. Full return to sport. | 1 of 1 | |
| Castagna (2007)6 | 9 | 9 | UCLA rating score: preoperative, 16.3; postoperative, 34.7; Constant score: preoperative, 52.3; postoperative, 80.2; SST score: preoperative, 7.9; postoperative, 4.2. | 9 of 9 reported being able to participate in all desired sports activities without any symptoms or limitations |
aMRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NCAA, National Collegiate Athletic Association; OSIS, Oxford shoulder instability score; SANE, single-assessment numerical evaluation; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; WOSI, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index.