Management of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability.

Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior working portal technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior working portal and determine whether they are comparable to the standard two-portal technique. METHODS: A search following PRISMA guidelines was performed in July 2024 in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies evaluating outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior portal technique were included. A meta-analysis comparing outcomes was performed using a random-effects model. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Seven studies in patients undergoing Bankart repair with a single anterior portal were included (311 patients, 84.6% male, mean age 27.8 years, mean follow-up 37.4 months). Five of seven studies compared outcomes of a single anterior portal versus the standard two-portal technique. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the single anterior portal group (P < 0.00001). The postoperative Oxford Instability Score (P = 0.84), Rowe score (P = 0.26), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = 0.73), Constant-Murley score (P = 0.92), and Visual Analog Scale Pain score (P = 0.07) were similar between both groups. The postoperative degree of shoulder abduction (P = 0.84) and external rotation (P = 0.64) were similar between both groups. The risk of redislocation (P = 0.98) was similar between both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair with a single anterior portal had significantly lower operative times and comparable PROs, ROM, and risk of redislocation relative to patients undergoing repair with a standard two-portal technique.

Impact of size and fragmentation of the anteroinferior glenoid rim on clinical and functional outcomes of non-operatively treated Bony Bankart lesions in middle-aged population.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment approach for Bony Bankart remains a subject of considerable debate among shoulder surgeons. Existing literature highlights low recurrence rates and high patient satisfaction with nonoperative treatment, particularly in the middle-aged population. This study aimed to evaluate the recurrence rate of dislocation, as well as the clinical and functional outcomes in middle-aged individuals treated nonoperatively following an acute bony Bankart fracture. Additionally, the impact of glenoid rim size and fragmentation on the treatment outcome was investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients aged over 50 with nonoperatively treated bony Bankart fractures, ensuring a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The study population was categorized based on fragment size (small and medium) according to Kim classification and glenoid rim fragmentation (type 1b and 1c) according to Scheibel classification. Data including UCLA score, Rowe score, recurrence rate, clinical instability, and range of motion (ROM) were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The average UCLA and Rowe scores were 32.15 ± 2.85 and 93.85 ± 2.19, respectively, with no instances of dislocation recurrence. The affected shoulder exhibited no significant reductions in ROM compared to the contralateral side, except for a loss of external rotation (ER) (13.08° ± 7.51; p = 0.005). No differences were observed based on fragment size, although patients with multifragmented glenoid rims showed a greater loss of ER compared to those with a solitary fragment, albeit not reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative treatment appears to be a viable and effective option for middle-aged individuals with bony Bankart fractures, resulting in favorable functional outcomes and a low risk of recurrence. Additionally, a notable loss of external rotation was observed in fractures with glenoid rim fragmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Comparison between arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP lesion repair in limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion. A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, recurrence rate, range of motion (ROM) and return to sports activities between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair (ABR/S) in limited contact-athletes with a type V SLAP lesion in the scenario of recurrent anterior shoulder instability (RASI). Our hypothesis was that there is no difference between the two treatments. METHODS: Two groups of 45 limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion were created. Group 1 underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair, while group 2 had an arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. The WOSI and ASES scores were used to assess primary functional outcomes. Recurrence rate, ROM and return to sport were also evaluated. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores pre- and post-operatively in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.78 and 0.43). We reported 4 recurrences (8.8 %) in group 1 and 5 (11.1 %) in group 2, with no difference between them (P = 0.62). There were no significant differences between the range of motion of each of the groups as well as between them. More than 90% of the athletes in both groups returned to their previous sporting activities. CONCLUSIONS: Limited-contact athletes with RASI who have a type V SLAP lesion as their primary diagnosis can be treated using either ABR or ABR/S with equal efficacy. Both treatment alternatives preserve athlete's function, stability, ROM and return to sport.

Similar outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-Track Hill Sachs lesion versus off-track Hill Sachs lesion managed with open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift.

INTRODUCTION: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift has not yet been tested under the concept of glenoid track as a predictor of failure. The aim of this study was to compare the subjective and objective outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill Sachs lesions versus those with off-track Hill Sachs lesions, all treated with open Bankart repair. METHODS: Two study groups were created: 50 patients had on-track Hill Sachs lesions, while 38 had off-track lesions. The subcritical glenoid bone loss was ≤ 10%. A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was established. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation of each group and between them was performed. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale were used to assess subjective outcomes. Recurrence rate, range of motion and return to sport were evaluated as objective outcomes. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores between preoperative and postoperative values in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.36 and 0.71). Three dislocations (6%) in the on-track group and 3 (7.8%) in the off-track group were recorded, showing no differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.83). There were no differences in ROM between pre- and post-operatively in each group or when comparing the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the outcomes of the two groups. According to the surgeon's preference, we recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with SGBL ≤ 10% independently of the type of Hill Sachs lesion.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage in Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in Fewer Redislocations Than Bankart Repair Alone at Medium-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: A multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) to Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) reported benefits of remplissage in reducing recurrent instability at 2 years postoperative. The ongoing benefits beyond this time point are yet to be explored. PURPOSE: To (1) compare medium-term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of these previously randomized patients undergoing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) to manage recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability; (2) examine the failure rate, overall recurrent instability, and reoperation rate. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Recruitment and randomization for the original randomized trial occurred between 2011 and 2017. Patients ≥14 years diagnosed with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with an engaging Hill-Sachs defect of any size were included. Those with a glenoid defect >15% were excluded. In 2020, participants were contacted by telephone and asked standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation, or reoperation on their study shoulder. "Failure" was defined as a redislocation, and "overall recurrent instability" was described as a redislocation or ≥2 subluxations. Descriptive statistics, relative risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 108 participants were randomized, of whom 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to the final follow-up was 49.3 and 53.8 months for the NO REMP and REMP groups, respectively. Failure rates were 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP group versus 8% (4/52) in the REMP group. Rates of overall recurrent instability were 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group versus 10% (5/52) in the REMP group. Survival curves were significantly different, favoring REMP in both scenarios. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative recurrent instability was observed with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage than with isolated Bankart repair at a medium-term follow-up (mean of 4 years). Patients who did not receive a remplissage experienced a failure (redislocated) earlier and had a higher rate of revision/reoperation than those who received a concomitant remplissage. REGISTRATION: NCT01324531 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Clinical outcomes in prospective versus retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective, and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play among studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" was used, with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score out of 100. A χ2 test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: A total of 193 studies were included in the analysis, with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. These studies encompassed a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of redislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective studies (P < .001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective studies (P = .004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (P = .013). There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play between prospective and retrospective studies (90% and 91%, respectively; P = .548). The overall rate of non-instability complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% vs. 0.78% in the retrospective studies (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations-subluxations are higher in prospective studies than retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise. METHODS: This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability. RESULTS: The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%. CONCLUSION: ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Modified double-pulley fixation provides better reduction of bone fragments and union compared to single-point fixation in bony Bankart lesions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical scores and imaging outcomes of bony Bankart lesions that underwent single-point and modified double-pulley fixation after at least 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery to treat bony Bankart injuries were included and divided into groups A and B. A total of 69 patients were included (32 in group A and 37 in group B). Patients in group A underwent arthroscopic modified double-pulley fixation and patients in group B underwent arthroscopic single-point fixation. Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) was used to assess glenoid reduction one day after surgery. Postoperative bony union was assessed using 3D-CT and multiplanar reconstruction images 6 months after surgery. Constant-Murley, Rowe rating system, visual analogue scale and University of California at Los Angeles and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were recorded before and after surgery. RESULTS: In terms of imaging measurements, there was no significant group difference in the preoperative size of the glenoid defect, the size of the bony fragment or the expected postoperative size of the glenoid defect. The sizes of the actual postoperative glenoid defects differed significantly between the groups (p = 0.027), as did the absolute difference between the expected and actual glenoid defect sizes (p < 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, 50.0% of group A patients and 24.3% of group B patients exhibited complete bony union (p = 0.027); the rates of partial union were 37.5% and 56.8%, respectively. At the final follow-up, all clinical scores were significantly better than the preoperative scores (all p < 0.05), with no significant group differences (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the modified double-pulley technique with two anchors to treat bony Bankart injuries provides a better reduction of bone fragments than single-point fixation with two anchors and was associated with a higher rate of early bone union. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Bony Bankart Lesion: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes.

¼ Bony Bankart lesions are fractures of the anteroinferior glenoid rim, commonly associated with a traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, and are diagnosed through radiological imaging and physical examination. Young male athletes playing contact sports are at highest risk of these injuries. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial because, if left untreated, recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss can occur. Both nonsurgical and surgical treatment options are available depending on the size of the lesion, with arthroscopic repair being the most common treatment method. After repair, patients typically have favorable outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability. This review aims to discuss the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of bony Bankart lesions.¼ Bony Bankart lesions are fractures of the anteroinferior glenoid rim and occur in up to 22% of first-time anterior shoulder dislocations.¼ Young men involved in contact sports or combat training are at the highest risk of sustaining bony Bankart lesions.¼ Diagnosis and treatment of bony Bankart lesions are essential to prevent long-term shoulder instability.¼ Bony Bankart lesions can be treated either nonoperatively or operatively (arthroscopic vs open repair), with the size of the glenoid defect being the primary determinant of treatment.

Comparison of Return to Sports and Competition After the Arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents With Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: The use of isolated soft tissue repair versus bone block stabilization for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in adolescents has no scientific evidence. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of adolescent patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart (iB) repair with those who underwent the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure in addition to Bankart (BLB) repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 60 shoulders in adolescents (aged 13-18 years) were reviewed with a minimum 2 years' follow-up: iB repair (n = 36) and arthroscopic Bankart repair with an additional Bristow-Latarjet procedure (BLB; n = 24). The characteristics of the patients in each group in terms of age at the first instability episode, age at surgery, hyperlaxity, participation in at-risk sports, and Instability Severity Index Score were comparable. The mean follow-up was longer in the iB group (7.7 vs 4.1 years, respectively), whereas the rates of patients engaged in competition and those with glenoid lesions were higher in the BLB group. The primary outcome measures were failure, defined as the recurrence of instability (clinical dislocation or subluxation), and return to sports. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (range, 2-16 years). RESULTS: At the last follow-up, the rate of recurrence was significantly higher in the iB group, with 22% (8/36) failures, than in the BLB group, with 8% (2/24) instability recurrences (P < .05). The rate of return to sports at the same level was significantly higher after the BLB repair than after iB repair (79% vs 47%, respectively; P < .001). No statistical difference was found in patient-reported outcome scores between treatment groups (P > .05). Although failures occurred early after the BLB repair, 88% of failures after iB repair occurred after 2 years. On multivariate analysis, adolescents in the iB group with >3 episodes of preoperative dislocation and shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) had a 60% recurrence rate (P < .005). CONCLUSION: Adolescent patients undergoing the BLB repair had a lower rate of recurrent instability and higher rates of return to sports and competition than those undergoing iB repair. Patients with shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) and >3 dislocations had an unacceptable failure rate of 60% after iB repair.

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success. CONCLUSION: Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Higher return to sport and lower revision rates when performing arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage for anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent anterior shoulder instability remains the most common complication from a prior shoulder dislocation, especially among young and active individuals who engage in athletic activities. This instability can lead to repeated subluxation or dislocations of the humeral head from the glenoid fossa. The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative recurrence rates, instability-related revision and return to sport (RTS) rates between isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and ABR with remplissage (ABR + R) for anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL) and a Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on June 2022. Studies sought were those comparing postoperative outcomes of ABR + R versus isolated ABR for subcritical GBL and an HSL. Study quality was evaluated using the revised Cochrane tool. Redislocations, instability-related revisions, and RTS rates were extracted and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included with a mean follow-up of 48.2 months for isolated ABR and 43.2 months for ABR + R. The meta-analytic comparison demonstrated that ABR + R resulted in statistically significant improvement in Rowe and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores by 6.5 and 2.2 points, respectively; however, the improvements in patient-reported outcomes were not clinically meaningful. ABR + R resulted in reduced external rotation at the side by 1° which was not clinically meaningful and there was no significant difference in terms of forward elevation. ABR + R resulted in a statistically significant reduction of overall postoperative recurrences (odds ratio [OR]: 9.36), postoperative dislocations (OR: 6.28), instability-related revision (OR: 3.46), and RTS to any level (OR: 2.85). CONCLUSION: The addition of remplissage to ABR for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical GBL and HSL results in significantly lower postoperative instability recurrence, lower instability-related revisions, and higher RTS to any level.

Editorial Commentary: For Patients With Shoulder Instability, On-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion Plus Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss May Be the Best Indication for Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon.

As the definition of shoulder glenoid critical bone loss has evolved and decreased from 25% to 17% to 13.5%, indications for bone block procedures for shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss have expanded. While the bone block procedure is an effective treatment for almost all cases of anterior shoulder instability, regardless of the amount of bone loss, many surgeons prefer to perform a bone block procedure only in cases of critical bone loss due to risk of complications. Thus, for cases of minimal (subcritical) bone loss, Remplissage has been recommended to enhance Bankart repair. As an alternative, dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of the biceps tendon has been recommended as a surgical option in patients with shoulder instability and subcritical bone loss. How do we decide? A biomechanical study shows DAS is an effective method for on-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical bone loss, and Remplissage is more effective for off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Clinical studies are required to complement biomechanical findings.

The New Double-row Bankart Repair Recovered Shoulder Stability without Excessive Motion Limitation: A Case-Control Study with Single-row Bankart Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Bankart lesion is one of the most common lesions of the glenohumeral joint. Several double-row suture methods were reported for Bankart repair, which could provide more stability, yet more motion limitation and complications. Therefore, we introduced a new double-row Bankart repair technique, key point double-row suture which used one anchor in the medial line. The purpose of this article is to investigate the clinical outcomes of this new method and to compare it with single-row suture. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients receiving key point double-row suture or single-row suture from October 2010 to June 2014 were collected retrospectively. The basic information including gender, age, dominant arm, and number of episodes of instability was collected. Before surgery, the glenoid bone loss was measured from the CT scan. The visual analogue scale, American shoulder and elbow surgeons, the University of California at Los Angeles shoulder scale, and subjective shoulder value were valued before surgery and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (24 patients receiving single-row suture and 20 patients receiving key point double-row suture) were followed up successfully. The follow-up period was 9.2 ± 1.1 years (range, 7.8-11.4 years). At the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected for any of the clinical scores. The recurrence rate was 12.5% for the single-row group and 10% for the double-row group, respectively (p = 0.795) 14 patients (31.8%) in the single-row group and nine patients (26.5%) in the double-row group were tested for active range of motion. A statistically significant difference was found only for the internal rotation at 90° abduction (48.9° for single-row and 76.7° for key point double-row, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The key point double-row sutures for Bankart lesions could achieve similar long-term outcomes compared with single-row suture, and one medial anchor did not result in a limited range of motion. The low recurrence rate and previous biomechanical results also indicate the key point double-row suture is a reliable method.

Longer peripheral-track lesions are associated with instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept has enabled the categorization of Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) into on-track lesions and off-track lesions. Furthermore, among the on-track lesions, further categorization has been established based on the distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track, into peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions. Recent studies on peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions within the glenoid track have shown inconsistencies in failure rates, which deserves further investigation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison of patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2015 and 2020 was performed. 102 patients with peripheral-track HSLs were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the results of the postoperative apprehension test: the apprehension positive group (n = 30), and the apprehension negative group (n = 72). Using preoperative computed tomography (CT) and an image reconstruction program, 3-dimensional (3D) images were segmented to calculate the length, width, depth, and distance of the HSLs. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of recurrence, for which odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. RESULTS: A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the length of the peripheral-track HSLs was a significant independent predictor of failure in this study. (OR 1.380; 95% CI 1.170-1.627; P < .001). The receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) demonstrated a predictive power (area under the curve = 0.841) and a threshold value of 14.2 mm. CONCLUSION: Length was the only risk factor for the recurrent instability of peripheral-track HSLs after ABR. In the context of surgical decision-making, utilizing the glenoid track concept, medical practitioners may need to evaluate instability by considering the length as a continuous factor, while differentiating between peripheral-track and central-track classifications.

Biomechanical Analysis Reveals Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss Is Best Treated With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization for On-Track Lesions and With Remplissage for Off-Track Lesions.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical effects of augmenting Bankart repair (BR) with either remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with on-track or off-track bipolar bone loss. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the intact, injury, and repair conditions. Injury conditions included 15% glenoid bone loss with an on-track or off-track Hill-Sachs lesion as previously recommended. Repair conditions included isolated BR, BR with remplissage, and BR with DAS (long head of biceps transfer). The glenohumeral stability was assessed by measuring the anterior translation under 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 N load and maximum load without causing instability at mid-range (60°) and end-range (90°) external rotation (ER). Maximum range of motion (ROM) was measured by applying a 2.2-N·m torque in passive ER and internal rotation. RESULTS: Isolated BR failed to restore native glenohumeral stability in both on-track and off-track bipolar bone loss models. Both remplissage and DAS significantly decreased the anterior instability in the bipolar bone loss models, showing better restoration than the isolated BR. In the on-track lesions, DAS successfully restored native glenohumeral stability and mobility, whereas remplissage significantly decreased anterior translation without load (-2.12 ± 1.07 mm at 90° ER, P = .003; -1.98 ± 1.23 mm at 60° ER, P = .015). In the off-track lesions, remplissage restored native glenohumeral stability but led to significant ROM limitation (-8.6° ± 2.3° for internal rotation, P < .001; -13.9° ± 6.2° for ER, P = .003), whereas DAS failed to restore native stability at 90° ER regarding the increased anterior translation under 50 N (4.10 ± 1.53 mm, P < .001) and decreased maximum load (-13.8 ± 9.2 N, P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: At time-zero, both remplissage and DAS significantly reduced residual anterior instability compared with isolated BR in the bipolar bone loss models and restored the native glenohumeral stability under most translational loads. However, remplissage could decrease the anterior translation without load for on-track lesions and may restrict ROM for off-track lesions, whereas DAS failed to restore native stability under high translational loads for off-track lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DAS could be recommended to treat on-track bipolar bone loss with less biomechanical adverse effects, whereas remplissage might be the preferred procedure to address off-track bipolar bone loss for better stability.

Editorial Commentary: Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Combining Arthroscopic Bankart and Inferior Capsular Shift Avoids Open Surgery in Athletes Without Critical Glenoid Bone Loss.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations can cause a myriad of injuries, each with their own unique set of challenges with respect to surgical management. The debate of whether open or arthroscopic management is the superior approach is one that predates most currently practicing orthopaedic surgeons yet remains one of the most actively researched areas of orthopaedics. Current trends favor arthroscopic management for anterior instability secondary to a Bankart lesion in patients without other risk factors for instability, such as critical glenoid bone loss. However, excellent results are not guaranteed following arthroscopic Bankart repair, particularly in athletes, due to high rates of recurrence. While the technique of inferior to superior capsular shift is not new, transitioning a historically open technique to the arthroscopic world may represent another tool in the glenohumeral instability management toolbox. While perspectives are evolving, more evidence supporting arthroscopic techniques like the capsular shift are needed to better identify appropriate patient populations.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomes and rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. METHODS: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using three databases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASE and PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studies and 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported among studies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.) or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied. HYPOTHESIS: Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability. RESULTS: In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions. CONCLUSION: Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.