Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift versus isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift and isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair have never been prospectively compared under the concept of glenoid track in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, range of motion, and recurrence rate between these 2 surgical techniques. We hypothesized that open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift would provide similar functional outcomes to isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair but with a lower recurrence rate. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted with 86 collision athletes divided into 2 groups of 43 patients each. All patients had a subcritical glenoid bone loss ≤13.5% and an on-track Hill Sachs lesion. The average follow-up was 66 (60-93) months for the open group and 68 (60-97) months for the arthroscopic group. The primary functional outcomes of each group were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. The functional outcomes were also compared between the 2 groups. The assessment tools included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES) score. In addition, recurrent instability and range of motion were also evaluated. RESULTS: In each group, there were significant differences in Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale score between the pre and postoperative periods. There were no differences between the groups at the end of follow-up (P = .47 and .22). Three dislocations (6.9%) in the open group and 10 dislocations (23.2%) in the arthroscopic group were reported showing significant differences (P = .012). In addition, there were no differences in range of motion between pre and postoperative periods for each group as well as between them. CONCLUSION: We found no differences in functional outcomes and range of motion between the 2 groups. The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the arthroscopic group. We recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

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.

Long-term outcomes of open modified inferior capsular shift for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: over 20 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of the open modified inferior capsular shift procedure across more than 20 years in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Participants in this study comprised 84 patients (86 shoulders; 67 men, 17 women). Mean follow-up was 28.0 years. We compared the recurrent instability rate after surgery, apprehension, revision rate, satisfaction, return to preinjury sporting activity, and patient background characteristics between recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. Twenty-seven patients who were examined directly were evaluated for differences in range of motion and muscle strength between affected and nonaffected sides. Clinical outcome scores used for this study were the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and the Rowe score. RESULTS: Nine shoulders (10.5%) showed recurrent instability, as dislocation in 3 shoulders and subluxation in 6 shoulders, but no revisions were required. All patients with recurrent instability were males with new trauma. Three shoulders developed recurrent instability ≤5 years after surgery, and the remaining 6 shoulders showed recurrent instability >5 years after surgery. No significant differences in any patient characteristic were identified between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. Significant differences between affected and nonaffected sides were seen in the mean active range of motion or muscle strength for external rotation in the anatomic position or in 90° of abduction. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and Rowe score were significantly worse in the recurrent group than in the nonrecurrent group. Patients reported that 84 shoulders (97.7%) were "much better." Most athletes (88.4%) had returned to sports activity at a level >70%. CONCLUSION: We investigated long-term outcomes of the open modified inferior capsular shift procedure for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Our data suggest that recurrent instability might result from new trauma even if a long time has passed since the open modified inferior capsular shift procedure, so follow-up should be continued as long as possible after surgery. As in other reports, satisfaction was high and clinical scores were good. We thus believe this surgical method offers good results even after more than 20 years.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift restores physiological capsular volume in patients with anterior shoulder instability.

PURPOSE: Capsular volume reduction in the context of anterior arthroscopic shoulder stabilization represents an important but uncontrolled parameter. The aim of this study was to analyse capsular volume reduction by arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift in patients with and without ligamentous hyperlaxity compared to a control group. METHODS: In the context of a prospective controlled study, intraoperative capsular volume measurements were performed in 32 patients with anterior shoulder instability before and after arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift. The results were compared to those of a control group of 50 patients without instability. Physiological shoulder joint volumes were calculated and correlated with biometric parameters (sex, age, height, weight and BMI). RESULTS: Patients with anterior shoulder instability showed a mean preinterventional capsular volume of 35.6 ± 10.6 mL, which was found to be significantly reduced to 19.3 ± 5.4 mL following arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift (relative capsular volume reduction: 45.9 ± 21.9%; P < 0.01). Pre-interventional volumes were significantly greater in hyperlax than in non-hyperlax patients, while post-interventional volumes did not differ significantly. The average shoulder joint volume of the control group was 21.1 ± 7.0 mL, which was significantly correlated with sex, height and weight (P < 0.01). Postinterventional capsular volumes did not significantly differ from those of the controls (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift enabled the restoration of physiological capsular volume conditions in hyperlax and non-hyperlax patients with anterior shoulder instability. Current findings allow for individual adjustment and intraoperative control of capsular volume reduction to avoid over- or under correction of the shoulder joint volume. Future clinical studies should evaluate, whether individualized approaches to arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are associated with superior clinical outcome.

Effect of arthroscopic techniques on joint volume in shoulder instability: Bankart repair versus capsular shift.

PURPOSE: The evaluation of glenohumeral joint volume in both unstable (with/without laxity) and stable shoulders (subacromial impingement) and volume reduction potential of arthroscopic techniques: (labral anchor repair vs. capsular shift). METHODS: Material was based on 133 patients: anterior shoulder instability without laxity (group I, n = 49), with laxity (group II, n = 22) and subacromial impingement (control group, n = 62) operated in 2010-2011. Group I received arthroscopic Bankart repair, group; II - arthroscopic anterior capsular plication, control group - subacromial decompression. Joint volume was measured by fluid aspiration into the syringe via arthroscope, before and after procedure. Then volume reduction potential was calculated. RESULTS: The following average values of initial joint volume were recorded: group I - 26.8 ml group II - 43.7 ml and the control group - 25.6 ml with significant differences: impingement vs. instability + laxity (p < 0.00001), impingement vs. instability without laxity (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups I and II. Joint volume was significantly reduced after labral repair (by average of 37 %, 13.8 ml, p < 0.0001). Capsular shift led to an even greater and more significant volume decrease (61 %, 26.7 ml, p < 0.001). Joint volume in the control group was reduced only by 11 %, 3.8 ml (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unstable shoulders have enlarged joint volume as compared to patients with subacromial impingement. Arthroscopic techniques lead to a significant joint volume reduction, with the most powerful effect for capsular shift. Level of Evidence - Level 2.

Effects of surgical management on multidirectional instability of the shoulder: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of arthroscopic and open surgical techniques on the treatment of shoulder multidirectional instability. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using the databases MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Original articles on the surgical management of multidirectional instability were retrieved against selection criteria. Data were extracted and divided into three groups by surgical technique. Proportion and mean meta-analyses were performed for comparison. RESULTS: The available evidence was from 35 level IV and 1 level II studies. The recurrent instability rate was 9.9 % (95 % CI 7.3-12.9 %) in open capsular shift (OCS) group and 6.0 % (95 % CI 3.7-8.9 %) in arthroscopic capsular plication (ACP) group, between which no difference was observed. However, thermal capsular shrinkage (TCS) group resulted in a recurrent instability rate of 23.9 % (95 % CI 16.6-32.2 %), significantly higher than the above two groups. OCS and ACP groups revealed low reoperation rates of approximately 5.2 % (95 % CI 2.7-8.5 %) and 4.8 % (95 % CI 2.3-8.0 %), respectively, which are lower than that in TCS group of 16.9 % (95 % CI 12.4-21.8 %). OCS caused more loss of external rotation than ACP, losing 7.0 (95 % CI 3.3-10.6) degrees versus 2 (95 % CI 0.9-2.4) degrees, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ACP and OCS techniques have similar primary outcomes, but the former causes less post-operative stiffness. It is suggestible to avoid TCS in the treatment of MDI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Upper limb kinematics after arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder joint stability mediated by proprioception is often quantified by arm repositioning tests (i.e., static end-position accuracy), overlooking ongoing movement quality. This study assessed movement quality by adopting smoothness-related kinematic descriptors. We compared performance of healthy controls with that of patients in arthroscopic shoulder stabilization and open shoulder stabilization groups. We hypothesized that arm kinematics after arthroscopic intervention would more closely resemble healthy movements compared with patients after open shoulder stabilization surgery. METHODS: Healthy controls (N = 14) were compared with patients after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization (N = 10) and open shoulder stabilization (N = 12). Right-hand dominant subjects (the affected side in patients) performed 135 unconstrained 3-dimensional pointing movements toward visual targets (seen through pinhole goggles; i.e., no arm vision). Arm kinematic data were recorded and offline analyzed to obtain hand tangential velocity profiles further used to compute the acceleration-to-movement time ratio, peak-to-mean velocity ratio, and number of velocity peaks ("symmetry," "proportion," and "fragmentation" features, respectively). Parametric and nonparametric statistics were used for comparisons (P ≤ .05). RESULTS: Control and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization groups presented similar acceleration-to-movement time ratio and peak-to-mean velocity ratio. Both groups differed from the open shoulder stabilization group (P = .001). Distributions of velocity peaks for control and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization groups were similar, whereas open shoulder stabilization and control subjects differed significantly (P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Movement quality mediated by proprioception in arthroscopic shoulder stabilization patients matches that of healthy controls, whereas performance in open shoulder stabilization patients seems inferior compared with that in healthy controls, as assessed by smoothness-related measures (less symmetrical, more fragmented movements).

Electrothermal arthroscopic capsulorrhaphy: old technology, new evidence. A multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency technology for shoulder instability was rapidly adopted despite limited clinical evidence and a poor understanding of its indications. Reports of serious adverse events followed, leading to its abandonment. This paper presents findings from a multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of electrothermal arthroscopic capsulorrhaphy (ETAC) compared with open inferior capsular shift (ICS) and reviews the role of randomized trials in adopting new technology. METHODS: Patients (>14 years) diagnosed with multidirectional instability or multidirectional laxity with anteroinferior instability and failed nonoperative treatment were enrolled. Patients with bone lesions or labral, biceps anchor, or full-thickness rotator cuff tears were excluded intraoperatively. Outcomes included Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, function and recurrent instability at 2 years postoperatively, and surgical times. RESULTS: Fifty-four subjects (mean age, 23 years; 37 women) were randomized to ETAC (n = 28) or open ICS (n = 26). The groups were comparable at baseline, except for external rotation at the side. At 2 years postoperatively, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences between groups for the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (P = .71), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = .43), Constant score (P = .43), and active range of motion. Recurrent instability was not statistically different (ETAC, 2; open, 4; P = .41). ETAC (23 minutes) was significantly shorter than open ICS (59 minutes) (P < .01) surgery. Three subjects (1 ETAC, 2 open) had stiff shoulders. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years postoperatively, quality of life and functional outcomes between groups were not clinically different. ETAC had fewer complications and episodes of recurrence compared with open surgery. This evidence reinforces the need to critically evaluate new technology before widespread clinical use.

Arthroscopic capsular shift from inferior to superior has an exceptional safety profile and short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Arthroscopic Bankart for anterior shoulder instability has a good safety profile but with a relatively high recurrence index. Open surgery has been used to decrease recurrence rates but with a higher complication rate. Arthroscopic capsular shift from inferior to superior (ACSIS) was designed to decrease the recurrence rates without the added morbidity of open surgery. METHODS: An observational retrospective study was conducted to analyze perioperative complications and patient reported outcomes of patients treated with ACSIS to determine the safety profile of the procedure. The patients with anterior traumatic shoulder instability treated with ACSIS between January 2015 and December 2021 were included for the study. The analysis was conducted using SPSS (Version 27). The pre vs. postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores were compared using a paired sample t-test or Wilcoxon signed ranks test depending on the results of the normality test and Levene's test. The significance level was 0.05 in all analyses. Thirty-six patients were included in this study, the mean age of the population is 30.8 â€‹± â€‹11.4 years, with a male dominance of 86.1% (N â€‹= â€‹31), and a mean clinical follow-up of 2.7 â€‹± â€‹1.2 years. RESULTS: No intraoperative complications, including bleeding or neurovascular injury, were noted. Additionally, no early postoperative complications, including infection or hospital readmission, were noted. During the follow-up, one patient (3%) had persistent apprehension. The mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index decreased from 66.6 â€‹± â€‹13.10% to 27.9 â€‹± â€‹22% postoperatively (P â€‹< â€‹0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ACSIS procedure is safe and has good short-term outcomes with a low recurrence rate at 1-year minimum follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (Observational study).

The History and Evolution of the Open Labral Repair with Capsular Shift for Shoulder Instability.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe the evolution of the open labral repair with capsular shift, including the current role of this procedure in the treatment of shoulder instability. RECENT FINDINGS: Currently, a subset of patients - high-level collision/contact sport athletes, patients with significant inferior or multi-directional instability, and individuals with failed arthroscopic Bankart repair without bone loss - may experience benefit from undergoing open Bankart repair with capsular shift. Surgeons performing open stabilization can benefit from instrumentation and anchors developed to assist with arthroscopic techniques. Understanding the history and evolution behind the procedure not only allows the surgeon to appreciate principles behind an arthroscopic approach, but also permits the utilization of an open approach when required by patient pathology and risk factors.

Open Bankart Repair: Technique and Outcomes for the High-Level Athlete.

Historically considered the gold standard technique for glenohumeral instability, the open Bankart repair is being performed at decreased rates because of the current trends favoring arthroscopic Bankart repair and the lack of consistent training of the open technique. However, open Bankart repairs may be more appropriate for certain high-risk populations (ie, high-level collision athletes) because of their reduced recurrent instability rates. Further investigations are needed to identify the indications for arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair and compare their outcomes in high-level athletes. This review highlights the indications, surgical technique, and clinical outcomes following open Bankart repairs in athletes.

Outcomes of Open Bankart Repair Plus Inferior Capsular Shift Compared with Latarjet Procedure in Contact Athletes with Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Background: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift (OBICS) and Latarjet procedure (LA) are considered appropriate treatment alternatives for high-performance athletes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes and recurrence rate of each surgery. Our hypothesis: there were no differences between the two treatments. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted with n=90 contact athletes divided into two groups of 45 patients. One group was treated with OBICS, and the other one with LA. The mean follow-up period was 25 (24-32) months for the OBICS group and 26 (24-31) months for the LA group. Primary functional outcomes of each group were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after surgery. The functional outcomes were also compared between the groups. The evaluation tools used were the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (WOSI) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (ASES). In addition, recurrent instability and range of motion (ROM) were also evaluated. Results: In each group, significant changes were found in the WOSI score and ASES scale from pre-op to postop. However, there were no significant differences between the functional outcomes of the groups at the final follow-up (P-values 0.73 and 0.19). Three dislocations and one subluxation (8.8%) were reported in the OBICS group, and three subluxations were reported in the LA group (6.6%), revealing no significant differences between the groups (P=0.37). Moreover, there were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative ROM in each group or in terms of external rotation (ER) and ER in 90º abduction between the groups. Conclusion: No differences were found between OBICS and LA surgery. Both procedures can be indicated according to the surgeon's preference to reduce recurrence rates in contact athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Pancapsular Shift for the Treatment of Multidirectional Glenohumeral Instability at a Mean Follow-up of 9 Years.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic treatment of multidirectional instability (MDI) of the shoulder is being increasingly performed, but there is a paucity of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up. PURPOSE: To report on survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after arthroscopic pancapsulorraphy (APC) for MDI with a minimum 5-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained before initiation of this retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Patients were included if they had a minimum of follow-up 5 years after APC for MDI. PROs included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation; shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; and patient satisfaction. Preoperative, short-term (1-2 years), and final follow-up PROs were compared. Recurrent instability, dislocation, and reoperation were collected, and survivorship analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 49 shoulders in 44 patients (15 male, 29 female) treated between October 2005 and November 2015 were included in the study. MDI onset was atraumatic in 27 shoulders and traumatic in 22. Rotator interval closure was performed in 17 patients. Overall, 14 of 49 (29%) patients reported feelings of instability in the shoulder, of whom 5 (10.2%) underwent revision surgery at a mean of 1.5 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a survivorship rate of 88% at 5 years and 82% at 8 years, with failure defined as requiring revision surgery or postoperative feelings of instability with ASES score <65. Final outcome analysis was performed on 41 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 9.0 years (range, 5.1-14.6 years). All PROs demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative baseline (P < .05) and remained significantly improved at both short-term and long-term final follow-up. There was no difference in PROs based on \\ atraumatic versus traumatic onset, or patients treated with a rotator interval closure. There was a significant difference in PROs between patients who had continued instability. CONCLUSION: APC for the treatment of MDI provided reasonable, durable long-term PROs that persisted from short-term follow-up. Although 29% of patients experienced feelings of instability at final follow-up, most of these patients still had high postoperative satisfaction and acceptable PROs.

Multidirectional instability of the shoulder: surgical techniques and clinical outcome.

Multidirectional instability of the shoulder has a complex pathoanatomy. It is characterized by a redundant glenohumeral capsule and increased joint volume. Subtle clinical presentation, unclear trauma history and multifactorial etiology poseses a great challenge for orthopedic surgeons in terms of diagnosis. Generally accepted therapeutic approach is conservative and the majority of patients achieve good results with rehabilitation. In patients who are symptomatic despite appropriate rehabilitation, surgical intervention may be considered. Good results have been obtained with open inferior capsular surgery, which has historically been performed in these patients. In recent years, advanced arthroscopic techniques have taken place in this field, and similar results compared to open surgery have been obtained with the less-invasive arthroscopic capsular plication procedure.

Biomechanical Comparison of Capsular Repair, Capsular Shift, and Capsular Plication for Hip Capsular Closure: Is a Single Repair Technique Best for All?

BACKGROUND: In hip arthroscopy, the best capsular closure technique to prevent microinstability in some patients while preventing overconstraints in other patients has yet to be determined. PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical effects of capsular repair, capsular shift, and combination capsular shift and capsular plication for closure of the hip capsule. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight cadaveric hips (4 male and 4 female hips; mean age, 55.7 years) were evaluated in 7 conditions: intact, vented, capsulotomy, side-to-side repair, side-to-side repair with capsular plication (interval closure between iliofemoral and ischiofemoral ligaments), capsular shift repair, and capsular shift repair with plication. Measurements, via a 360° goniometer, included internal and external rotation with 1.5 N·m of torque at 5° of extension and 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. In addition, the degree of maximum extension with 5 N·m of torque and the amount of femoral distraction with 40 N and 80 N of force were obtained. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc analyses were used to analyze differences between capsular conditions. RESULTS: At lower hip positions (5° of extension, 0° and 30° of flexion), there was a significant increase in external rotation and total rotation after capsulotomy versus the intact state (P < .05). At all hip flexion angles, there was a significant increase in external rotation, internal rotation, and total rotation as well as a significant increase in maximum extension after capsulotomy versus capsular shift with plication (P < .05 for all). At all flexion angles, both capsular closure with side-to-side repair (with or without plication) and capsular shift without capsular plication were able to restore rotation, with no significant differences compared with the intact capsule (P > .05). Among repair constructs, there were significant differences in range of motion between side-to-side repair and combined capsular shift with plication (P < .05). CONCLUSION: At all positions, significantly increased rotational motion was seen after capsulotomy. Capsular closure was able to restore rotation similar to an intact capsule. Combined capsular shift and plication may provide more restrained rotation for conditions of hip microinstability but may overconstrain hips without laxity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: More advanced closure techniques or a combination of techniques may be needed for patients with hip laxity and microinstability. At the same time, simple repair may suffice for patients without these conditions.

Open Stabilization Procedures of the Shoulder in the Athlete: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Shoulder instability is a relatively common injury especially in the young athletic population and its surgical management continues to remain a controversial topic in sports medicine orthopedics. Anterior instability is the most common type encountered and is estimated to have an incidence rate of 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general population; however, this figure is likely higher in the young athletic population. While in recent practice, arthroscopic surgery has become the new gold standard for management, reported failure rates as high as 26% and high recurrence rates in specific subpopulations such as young men in high collision sports have led to the consideration of alternative open procedures such as open Bankart repair, Latarjet, capsular shift, and glenoid bone grafting. These procedures may be preferred in specific patient subgroups such as young athletes involved in contact sports and those with Hill-Sachs defects and multidirectional instability, with postoperative recurrence rates of instability as low as 10%. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of different open surgical techniques in the management of shoulder instability and summarize patient outcomes including recurrence rates for shoulder instability, return to sport, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and complications either individually by procedure or in comparison with other techniques, with special focus on their impact in the athletic population.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair: A matched cohort comparison of the modified Mason Allen method and the simple stitch method.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has become a standard treatment for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in cases with minimal bone loss. Using the standard Bankart repair technique, the failure rate has been reported to be approximately between 4 and 35%. In addition to the original injury, multiple pathologies can occur after a dislocation including a Bankart lesion, capsular redundancy and bone defects. In cases with no significant bone loss, soft tissue plays a major role in stabilizing the shoulder joint. We hypothesized that effective repair of soft tissue with good inferior capsular shifting and proper capsulolabral restoration can create a proper level of soft tissue tension so the horizontal mattress suture method should improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing the records of patients with recurrent anterior instability who underwent ABR at a single institution between January 2009 and December 2017. Demographic information, preoperative radiographic data including glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs width, glenoid track and other surgical details were retrieved from the medical records. The patients identified were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 had one modified Mason Allen stitch plus simple stitches, while Group 2 had only simple stitches. Data obtained from the patient included failure rate, patient satisfaction, the ROWE score and Walch-Duplay score at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. Risk factors for failure were also identified. RESULTS: Group 1 included 50 patients (mean age 27.2 ± 9.4 years) who underwent modified Mason Allen stitch ABR (median follow-up, 59.2 months; range, 26.2-128.6 months). Group 2 included 30 patients (mean age 26.9 ± 8.5 years) who underwent simple stitch repair ABR (median follow-up, 68.0 months; range, 24.0-127.9 months). All patients met the inclusion criteria. Evaluation at the final follow-up compared Group 1 and Group 2: ROWE score (86.8 vs 76.3, P = 0.001), Walch-Duplay score (87.2 vs 82.0, P = 0.035), respectively. Failure rates were 6% in group 1 compared to 10% in group 2 (P = 0.511). CONCLUSIONS: The modified Mason Allen stitch technique and the simple stitches technique ABR both result in excellent patient satisfaction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Both techniques successfully restore shoulder stability, but the modified Mason Allen stitch technique results in better functional outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; level of evidence, 3.

Comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes of three procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: arthroscopic Bankart repair, capsular shift, and open Latarjet.

BACKGROUND: Best surgical of recurrent anterior shoulder instability remained controversial. We knew little about the superiority and choice between traditional open and modern arthroscopic techniques. We hypothesized that outcomes of all patients will be similar regardless of surgical technique. METHODS: A retrospective case-cohort analysis of 168 patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability was conducted from September 2010 to December 2013. All cases (mean age 30.8 [range 18-50] years) were performed with arthroscopic Bankart repair (33 males/20 females), open Latarjet (34 males/18 females), and capsular shift (31 males/14 females). The average follow-up was 67.6 months (range 60-72). The shoulder instability index score (ISIS) was more than 3 with an average of 6.4. RESULTS: All treatments proved to be effective in improving shoulder functional status and reducing symptoms, while Latarjet had an advantage over subjective perception. The Rowe scores in arthroscopic Bankart, open Latarjet, and capsular shift group were 92.3 ± 1.5, 96.2 ± 2.1, and 93.2 ± 2.3, respectively, with significant difference. There was no significant difference in other functional outcomes. However, the Latarjet group in subjective results (subjective shoulder value (SSV) and subjective shoulder value for sport practice (SSV Sport)) was superior to the others (P < 0.05). There were two relapsed cases in arthroscopic Bankart and capsular shift group, respectively, and no recurrence in open Latarjet group. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair has the advantage of mini-invasion and rapid recovery. Capsular shift offers stabilizing of inferior or multidirectional type, especially for little bone defect. Latarjet was more effective in reducing recurrence with higher stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III.

Multidirectional Shoulder Instability: Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of multidirectional instability of the shoulder is complex. The surgeon should have a clear understanding of the role of hiperlaxity, anatomical variations, muscle misbalance and possible traumatic incidents in each patient. METHODS: A review of the relevant literature was performed including indexed journals in English and Spanish. The review was focused in both surgical and conservative management of multidirectional shoulder instability. RESULTS: Most patients with multidirectional instability will be best served with a period of conservative management with physical therapy; this should focus in restoring strength and balance of the dynamic stabilizers of the shoulder. The presence of a significant traumatic incident, anatomic alterations and psychological problems are widely considered to be poor prognostic factors for conservative treatment. Patients who do not show a favorable response after 3 months of conservative treatment seem to get no benefit from further physical therapy. When conservative treatment fails, a surgical intervention is warranted. Both open capsular shift and arthroscopic capsular plication are considered to be the treatment of choice in these patients and have similar outcomes. Thermal or laser capsuloraphy is no longer recommended. CONCLUSION: Multidirectional instability is a complex problem. Conservative management with focus on strengthening and balancing of the dynamic shoulder stabilizers is the first alternative. Some patients will fare poorly and require either open or arthroscopic capsular plication.

Arthroscopic treatment of shoulder instability: a systematic review of capsular plication versus thermal capsulorrhaphy.

OBJECTIVE: Shoulder instability is a common disorder of the shoulder that can result in debilitating pain and decreased function. Poorly treated cases of instability result in excessive mobility, possibly leading to labral tears and degenerative arthritis. The purpose of my systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of 2 popular arthroscopic techniques used to reduce shoulder instability: capsular plication and thermal capsulorrhaphy. DATA SOURCES: Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ovid/MEDLINE searches using the terms capsular plication, capsular shift, capsular shrinkage, shoulder capsulorrhaphy, and treatment of shoulder instability. STUDY SELECTION: I sought cohort studies, case reviews, and randomized controlled trials published from 2000 through March 2013 that evaluated the outcomes of the 2 surgical procedures, which resulted in a total of 12 studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcome measures were range of motion, satisfaction, and return to previous activity level. DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall success rates of the reviewed studies were 91% for arthroscopic capsular plication and 76.5% for thermal capsulorrhaphy. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular plication had a higher rate of success than thermal capsulorrhaphy. However, postoperative management varied more among the thermal capsulorrhaphy studies and was generally less conservative than management involving standardized capsular-plication protocols. Future authors should investigate operative techniques and postoperative management, which may help to improve thermal capsulorrhaphy outcomes.