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.

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.

Methodology and development of a machine learning probability calculator: Data heterogeneity limits ability to predict recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and train a machine learning (ML) algorithm to create a clinical decision support tool (i.e., ML-driven probability calculator) to be used in clinical practice to estimate recurrence rates following an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: Data from 14 previously published studies were collected. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients treated with ABR without remplissage for traumatic anterior shoulder instability and (2) a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Risk factors associated with recurrence were identified using bivariate logistic regression analysis. Subsequently, four ML algorithms were developed and internally validated. The predictive performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration and the Brier score. RESULTS: In total, 5591 patients underwent ABR with a recurrence rate of 15.4% (n = 862). Age <35 years, participation in contact and collision sports, bony Bankart lesions and full-thickness rotator cuff tears increased the risk of recurrence (all p < 0.05). A single shoulder dislocation (compared to multiple dislocations) lowered the risk of recurrence (p < 0.05). Due to the unavailability of certain variables in some patients, a portion of the patient data had to be excluded before pooling the data set to create the algorithm. A total of 797 patients were included providing information on risk factors associated with recurrence. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve) ranged between 0.54 and 0.57 for prediction of recurrence. CONCLUSION: ML was not able to predict the recurrence following ABR with the current available predictors. Despite a global coordinated effort, the heterogeneity of clinical data limited the predictive capabilities of the algorithm, emphasizing the need for standardized data collection methods in future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation of the classic Bankart repair leads to satisfactory clinical and functional mid-term outcomes in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and less than a subcritical glenoid bone loss.

PURPOSE: The long-term failure rate of the arthroscopic Bankart repair may reach unacceptable values, raising the need to augment this classic procedure. Arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation is the tenodesis of the upper part of the subscapularis tendon to the anterior glenoid rim. The aim of the study was to evaluate the mid-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients operated with arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation of the classic Bankart repair due to recurrent anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-centre case series study with prospectively collected data. All patients suffered from recurrent anterior shoulder instability and had glenoid bone loss less than 13.5% of the inferior glenoid diameter (subcritical glenoid bone loss). Patients with greater anterior glenoid bone defect, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions, multidirectional instability or subscapularis insufficiency were excluded. Postoperatively, all patients were evaluated for recurrence and apprehension. The patient's shoulder range of motion and functional scores were recorded. RESULTS: The final study cohort included 34 patients with a mean age of 29.3 ± 10.2 years. The mean follow-up period was 42.4 ± 10.7 months (range, 24-62 months). Two out of 34 patients (5.8%) experienced a re-dislocation postoperatively, while one additional patient had a subjective feeling of apprehension. External rotation at the last follow-up was lower compared to preoperative values or the healthy side, but only one patient had restrictions in his sporting activities. The functional scores were significantly increased compared to the preoperative values. Twenty-two out of 26 patients (84.6%) returned to the same level of sporting activities, and 30/34 patients (88.2%) were highly satisfied with the results. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation of the classic Bankart repair reduces the dislocation recurrence rate and leads to satisfactory clinical and functional mid-term outcomes in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and less than a subcritical glenoid bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

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.

High long-term failure rates after arthroscopic Bankart repair in younger patients with recurrent shoulder dislocations: A plea for early treatment.

PURPOSE: To determine arthroscopic Bankart repair outcomes and recurrence risk factors at a minimum 5-year follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective assessment of prospectively collected data, single-cohort study of patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Demographical and preoperative instability features were collected. Primary outcome was recurrent instability set as dislocation or subluxation. Secondary outcomes were revision surgery, postoperative instability degree according to Manta criteria, objective and subjective clinical and functional status, assessed by the Rowe, Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores. Return to sport and postoperative sports activity at the final follow-up were also recorded. RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-two patients, 82% men, average age at surgery 29.5 ± 9.2 years, were included. At a mean follow-up of 8.3 ± 2.6 years, recurrent instability occurred in 53 of 172 patients (30.8%). Revision surgery was required in 23/53 (43.4%) of shoulder with recurrent instability. Recurrence occurred within the first 2 years postoperative in 49% of the shoulders, whereas 51% of recurrences occurred after this period. Recurrence took place after a traumatic event in 25% and 56%, respectively. Recurrence rates were higher in patients who underwent surgery after two or more dislocations (p = 0.029). Patients younger at the time of first dislocation, younger at surgery and those with a higher preoperative degree of instability also showed significantly higher rates of recurrence (p = 0.04, p = 0.02, p = 0.03). Postoperative ROWE, WOSI and SSV scores were significantly worse in patients with recurrent instability (p < 0.001). Return-to-sports rate was also lower in patients with postoperative recurrence (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Bankart repair was associated with a high long-term recurrence rate, and its effectiveness decreased over time. The lowest recurrence rates in arthroscopic Bankart repair were achieved in older patients with only one prior instability episode and a lower instability degree. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

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.

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.

Surgical treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability: a historical review.

BACKGROUND: Glenohumeral instability is a common pathology, particularly in young, active patients. METHODS: A narrative review was performed to describe the history of surgical treatments for anterior shoulder instability. RESULTS: Open surgical techniques were first described by Bankart in 1923. Techniques include both anatomic soft tissue repairs and nonanatomic procedures to provide constraint to motion and dislocation. Osseous techniques to address glenoid bone loss include both autograft techniques, such as the Latarjet procedure, and the use of various allografts. Technologic advances, particularly arthroscopy, have continued to drive the evolution of treatments. The concept of the glenoid track has furthered our understanding of this pathology to guide appropriate treatment to reduce recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability continues to evolve in an effort to restore function and prevent additional injury.

Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: The role of arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be definitively established and merits further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision procedure for failed Bankart repair, as well as the return to athletic activity and complication rates. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2020, patients with a previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair who were treated with an arthroscopic Latarjet were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical outcomes at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively included the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Dislocations, subluxations, complications, pre- and postoperative levels of activity, and degree of osteoarthritis were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients, with a mean age at revision surgery of 31.2 ± 9.1 years and with either 1 (n = 59), 2 (n = 13), or 3 (n = 4) previous arthroscopic stabilizations, who underwent revision surgery using an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were studied. Postoperatively, the mean Rowe and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores increased from 41.8 ± 16 to 90.7 ± 14.3 (P < .001) and from 50.5 ± 13.8 to 90.5 ± 10.3 (P < .001), respectively. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index decreased from 1247 ± 367.6 to 548.9 ± 363 at the final follow-up (P < .001). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 23.1 months, 64 shoulders (83.1%) were subjectively graded as good to excellent using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. Grade 1, 2, and 3 osteoarthritis, according to Ogawa et al, was found in 18 (23.4%), 6 (7.8%), and 3 (3.9%) shoulders, respectively. Six (7.8%) dislocations after revision surgery were reported. In 4 failed cases, an Eden-Hybinette procedure was conducted, and in the remaining 2 patients, an arthroscopic extra-articular anterior capsular reinforcement was performed. A significantly decreased level of athletic activity was observed postoperatively (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Latarjet for the revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory patient-reported subjective outcomes with a low rate of recurrences and complications. However, a decreased level of athletic activity is expected.

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.

Comparative efficacy of treatments for a first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FASD) is a common trauma associated with shoulder dysfunction. Although several randomized controlled trials have compared conservative and surgical treatments for FASD, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is poorly understood. In this network meta-analysis (NMA), we compared the available evidence on the efficacy of various interventions in patients with FASD. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases in March 2023. This NMA included randomized controlled trials comparing conservative and surgical treatments for FASD, including arthroscopic Bankart repair, arthroscopic lavage, external rotation (ER) immobilization, and internal rotation (IR) immobilization. The primary outcomes were redislocation rates, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores, and adverse events (AEs). We conducted random-effects NMA within the frequentist framework. To rank the treatments, the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve was calculated using a Bayesian framework. We evaluated confidence in each outcome using the CINeMA tool. RESULTS: Of the 2999 reviewed studies, 15 were included and analyzed. Regarding the primary outcomes, arthroscopic Bankart repair likely results in a large reduction in redislocation rates compared to IR immobilization (risk ratio [RR], 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.33). Both arthroscopic lavage (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.20-1.11) and ER immobilization (RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-1.00) may reduce the redislocation rates slightly compared with IR immobilization. According to these results, arthroscopic Bankart repair ranked first in terms of reducing the redislocation rate, followed by arthroscopic lavage, ER and IR immobilization. Regarding the WOSI score, no substantial differences were observed in the WOSI scores among the four treatments. AEs showed that ER immobilization tended to cause greater shoulder stiffness than IR immobilization, and postoperative erythema, swelling, and adhesive capsulitis were observed after arthroscopic Bankart repair and lavage. However, a meta-analysis was not performed because the definitions of AEs differed between the studies. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair showed a significant effect in reducing the redislocation rate compared to IR immobilization. Although both arthroscopic lavage and ER immobilization seemed to be effective in reducing the redislocation rates, it was not statistically significant. Moreover, these four treatments may result in little to no difference in disease-specific quality of life and there is no clear evidence of AEs.

Does previous arthroscopic Bankart repair influence coracoid graft osteolysis in Latarjet procedure? A case-control study with computed tomography scan data.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure is commonly performed in the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability and is also indicated as a salvage procedure for recurrence after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Although this procedure has shown success, there has been an increased awareness of complications in recent studies, especially graft osteolysis. Most relevant research has focused on the pathophysiology, incidence, or location of graft osteolysis or the risk factors for graft osteolysis; however, the data are limited to primary Latarjet procedures. This study aimed to investigate the effect of previous arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery on coracoid bone graft osteolysis in the Latarjet procedure. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study analyzed data from patients who underwent primary Latarjet procedures or revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Clinical outcome measures included range of motion, the Subjective Shoulder Value, and the Rowe score. Volumetric analysis of each transferred coracoid graft was performed using early postoperative and late postoperative computed tomography scan data, and the amount of graft osteolysis was then calculated as the percentage of volume reduction of each graft. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study, with 24 patients in the primary Latarjet group (group I) and 8 patients in the revision Latarjet group (group II). The mean age of the patients was 32.5 ± 7.7 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 52.1 ± 8.9 months. Both study groups showed significant improvement in the Subjective Shoulder Value compared with baseline (P < .05). Comparison of postoperative clinical outcome measures showed no significant difference in any outcome parameter between the 2 study groups (P > .05). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. A positive apprehension sign was present in 6 patients (25%) in group I and 4 patients (50%) in group II (P > .05). Analysis of radiologic data revealed that all patients underwent some degree of graft osteolysis, with varying osteolysis ratios between 12% and 98%. The mean osteolysis ratio of the coracoid graft was 67.3% ± 22.6% in group I and 69.4% ± 25.6% in group II, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that a considerable amount of coracoid graft osteolysis is observed after both primary Latarjet procedures and revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair did not seem to have a significant influence on the amount of graft osteolysis, and both primary and revision Latarjet procedures showed satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Results of combined all-arthroscopic Latarjet with Hill-Sachs remplissage for significant bipolar glenohumeral bone loss.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic Latarjet using suture-button fixation has shown good clinical results and low recurrent instability in patients with significant glenoid bone loss. However, the presence of an associated Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) is a risk factor for recurrent instability after isolated Latarjet. The aim of the study was to report clinical and radiologic results following all-arthroscopic Latarjet combined with Hill-Sachs remplissage (HSR). METHODS: Monocentric prospective study including 41 patients (mean age 28 ± 7 years) who underwent the combined procedure between 2014 and 2019 with minimum 2 years' follow-up (mean 40 ± 13 months). Indications were glenoid bone loss >10% (mean 23.9% ± 7.5%) and large, deep HSL (Calandra 3). Five (13%) patients had signs of osteoarthrosis stage I preoperatively, 4 (10%) had previous stabilization surgery (3 cases isolated Bankart and 1 case Bankart combined with HSR), and 4 (13%) were epileptic. The HSR was performed first followed by guided Latarjet procedure. Primary outcome measures included shoulder stability and function represented by Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores, and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) for daily life/sports. Secondary outcome measures included coracoid graft position and union, and glenohumeral osteoarthritis using radiographs and computed tomography. RESULTS: Three patients (7%) had recurrent instability: 1 due to seizure, 1 following fall, and 1 related to graft osteolysis. Two patients were revised because of recurrence with arthroscopic distal clavicle autograft. There were no infections, neurologic complications, or hardware failures. The Walch-Duplay score was 90 (95% CI 76.8-93.2), and the Rowe score 95 (95% CI 77.2-92.2). The median SSV averaged 96% (95% CI 87.5-97.0) for daily life and 90% (95% CI 75.7-90.2) for sports. Mean external rotation with the arm at the side was 60° (95% CI 59°-70°) with a median loss 10° (95% CI 3°-17°) compared to the contralateral side. Among patients playing sport preoperatively, 36 (95%) were able to return to sport: 25 (67%) at the same level and 7 (18%) at a lower level, whereas 4 had to change sport. The coracoid graft was flush with the glenoid surface in 96% of cases and subequatorial in 89%. The graft developed nonunion in 11% and fractured in 5%. Seven patients (18%) had radiographic signs of grade I osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Combined arthroscopic Latarjet and HSR is an efficient solution for dealing with significant bipolar glenohumeral bone loss. The combined procedure deserves consideration in high-risk patients including combined bone loss, recurrent anterior instability after failed stabilization procedures and/or seizure.

Arthroscopic stabilization surgery for first-time anterior shoulder dislocations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of first-time anterior shoulder dislocations (FTASDs) remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to December 18, 2022, for single-arm or comparative studies assessing FTASDs managed with arthroscopic stabilization surgery following first-time dislocation. Eligible comparative studies included studies assessing outcomes following immobilization for an FTASD, or arthroscopic stabilization following recurrent dislocations. Eligible levels of evidence were I to IV. Primary outcomes included rates of shoulder redislocations, cumulative shoulder instability, and subsequent shoulder stabilization surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies with 2222 shoulder dislocations were included. Of these, 5 studies (n = 408 shoulders) were randomized trials comparing immobilization to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) after a first dislocation. Another 16 studies were nonrandomized comparative studies assessing arthroscopic Bankart repair following first-time dislocation (ABR-F) to either immobilization (studies = 8, n = 399 shoulders) or arthroscopic Bankart repair following recurrent dislocations (ABR-R) (studies = 8, n = 943 shoulder). Mean follow-up was 59.4 ± 39.2 months across all studies. Cumulative loss to follow-up was 4.7% (range, 0%-32.7%). A composite rate of pooled redislocation, cumulative instability, and reoperations across ABR-F studies was 6.8%, 11.2%, and 6.1%, respectively. Meta-analysis found statistically significant reductions in rates of redislocation (odds ratio [OR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.3, P < .001), cumulative instability (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.08, P < .001), and subsequent surgery (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.15, P < .001) when comparing ABR-F to immobilization. Rates of cumulative instability (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.47, P < .001) and subsequent surgery rates (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.76, P = .01) were significantly reduced with ABR-F relative to ABR-R, with point estimate of effect favoring ABR-F for shoulder redislocation rates (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.19-1.83, P = .36). Return to sport rates to preoperative levels or higher were 3.87 times higher following ABR-F compared to immobilization (95% CI 1.57-9.52, P < .001), with limited ABR-R studies reporting this outcome. The median fragility index of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 2, meaning reversing only 2 outcome events rendered the trials' findings no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs leads to lower rates of redislocations, cumulative instability, and subsequent stabilization surgery relative to immobilization or arthroscopic stabilization surgery following recurrence. Although a limited number of RCTs have been published on the subject matter to date, the strength of their conclusions is limited by a small sample size and statistically fragile results.

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.

Long-term results of arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for failed anterior shoulder instability repair using suture anchors at a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder instability repair has been proposed, and early clinical results have been promising. However, long-term results after this procedure and the probable risk factors for failure have not been sufficiently discussed in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients who were diagnosed with recurrent anteroinferior shoulder instability after failed Bankart repair, treated with ACRR between September 1998 and November 2003 and able to be contacted were included. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study due to the use of SureTak anchors for fixation, and 5 other patients refused to participate in the study due to lack of interest (3 patients) or lack of time (2 patients). The remaining shoulders were clinically examined at a minimum of ten years after surgery via the ASES, Constant, AAOS, Rowe, Dawson and VAS scores for pain and stability. Degenerative arthropathy was assessed with the modified Samilson-Prieto score. RESULTS: All 31 remaining shoulders were evaluated at a mean time of 11.86 years (142.4 months) after surgery. Six patients (19.35%) reported redisolcation after the revision procedure, 4 of whom were affected by a new significant shoulder trauma. The ROWE and Constant scores improved significantly. Moderate to severe dislocation arthropathy was observed in 19.4% of patients. Five patients (16.2%) were not satisfied with the procedure. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up after ACRR shows predictable results, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, good to excellent patient-reported outcome scores and minimal radiological degenerative changes. However, with an average recurrence rate of 19.3% after 11.86 years, the redislocation rate appears high. With careful patient selection, recurrence rates can be significantly reduced.

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.

No difference in biomechanical properties of simple, horizontal mattress, and double row repair in Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic Bankart repair is the most common procedure in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Various repair techniques using suture anchors have been used to improve the strength of fixation and surgical outcomes in arthroscopic Bankart surgery. However, evidence regarding which method is superior is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was designed to compare the biomechanical results of simple versus horizontal mattress versus double-row mattress for Bankart repair. METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify comparative biomechanical studies comparing the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row techniques commonly used in Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Biomechanical results included the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and mode of failure after the ultimate load. The methodological quality was assessed based on the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale for biomechanical studies. RESULTS: Six biomechanical studies comprising 125 human cadavers were included in this systematic review. In biomechanical studies comparing simple and horizontal mattress repair and biomechanical studies comparing simple and double-row repair, there were no significant differences in the ultimate load to failure, stiffness, or cyclic displacement between the repair methods. The median QUACS scale was 11.5 with a range from 10 to 12, indicating a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There was no biomechanically significant difference between the simple, horizontal mattress, and double-row methods in Bankart repair. Clinical evidence such as prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes according to the various repair methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Therapeutic level IV.

Return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair in teenage athletes: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder instability is frequent among young athletes. Surgical treatment for this injury aims to facilitate an early return to sports (RTS). However, the rate of recurrent instability after surgery is reportedly high among young patients, and it is unclear whether surgery ensures satisfactory RTS. The purpose of this study was to verify the clinical outcomes and RTS after arthroscopic Bankart repair in competitive teenage athletes without critical bone loss in the glenoid. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed competitive teenage athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair. Patients with large bony defects in the glenoid, larger than 20% of the healthy side, were excluded. Clinical outcomes, recurrent instability, the final level of RTS, and the time needed for RTS were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 50 patients with a mean follow-up period of 44.5 ± 19.6 (range, 24-85 months) months were included. The mean age at surgery was 16.8 ± 1.7 (range, 13-19 years) years. Two patients (4.0%) experienced recurrent instability. All patients returned to sports, 96% of patients participated competitively, and 76% achieved a complete return to the pre-injury level without any complaints. The time for RTS was 6.6 ± 2.7 months (range, 3-18 months), to competitions was 9.3 ± 4.0 (range, 6-24 months) months, and to complete return was 10.6 ± 4.3 (range, 8-24 months) months. The complete return rates varied by sports type, with 82% in contact athletes, 59% in dominant-hand overhead athletes, and 100% in other athletes (P = 0.026). Other preoperative factors or concomitant lesion such as bony Bankart, superior labrum tear, or humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament lesion did not affect the complete RTS. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair is an effective surgical procedure for anterior shoulder instability, even among competitive teenage athletes. Sports type was the only factor associated with complete RTS after surgery.