Arthroscopic selective approach to dynamic posterior shoulder instability: Long-term follow-up insights.

AIMS: Evaluate outcomes of arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in patients with structural dynamic posterior instability (Moroder classification B2), analyzing factors associated with inferior clinical outcomes or recurrence. The primary hypothesis is that this surgical approach in patients without static structural changes such as excessive glenoid retroversion or dysplastic glenoids will result in satisfactory clinical outcomes and low failure rates. METHODS: Observational retrospective analysis in patients diagnosed with posterior structural dynamic instability who underwent arthroscopic capsulolabral repair. Demographic, clinical and radiologic characteristics were registered as well as patient reported outcomes, satisfaction, complications and failure with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Association between these outcomes and preoperative factors was investigated. RESULTS: 21 patients were included, with an average age of 38.1 years (range 27-51) and a mean follow-up of 68.7 months (range 24-127). At final follow-up the degree of instability was 0 in 19 (90.5%) patients. Overall outcome assessment demonstrated a mean SSV of 82.3 (±15.2), mean WOSI score of 460.1 (±471) and a mean 91.5 (±13) ROWE score. Furthermore, a significant portion of patients returned to sport 71.4% at any level and 57.1% at previous level, and 71.4% reported satisfaction with treatment, while 5 patients (23.8%) had criteria for failure. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair in selected patients with type B2 posterior shoulder instability without static posterior findings yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes and low failure rates.

Glenolabral Articular Disruption (GLAD) Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes or Higher Instability Recurrence after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair-A Matched-Pair Analysis.

Background: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) in patients with anterior shoulder instability, with and without a GLAD lesion, while distinguishing between primary and recurrent instability. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent isolated ABR between January 2012 and December 2021 were included. Patients with a concomitant GLAD lesion were matched in with patients without a GLAD lesion according to the following criteria: age, sex, BMI, follow-up time, and primary versus recurrent instability. At minimum two-year follow-up, the clinical outcome (Rowe score, redislocation rate) and the functional outcome, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS), satisfaction (1-10 scale, 0 = unsatisfied, 10 = very satisfied), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), were compared between groups. Results: In total, 28 patients (14 GLAD vs. 14 Bankart; age: 32.5 ± 13.0 years; sex: 92.9% male; BMI: 24.6 ± 2.2) were included 6.9 ± 2.8 (2-11) years after isolated ABR (follow-up rate 63.6%). Clinical and functional outcome did not differ significantly between patients with versus without GLAD lesions (ASES score: 100 [96.5-100] vs. 97.5 [93.3-100], p = 0.27); WOSI (%): 9.0 [3.7-24.5] vs. 3.8 [0.8-8.9], p = 0.22; Rowe score: 90.0 [75.0-100] vs. 95.0 [78.8-100], p = 0.57; OSIS: 46 [44.7-48] vs. 46 [43.0-48], p = 0.54; satisfaction: 8.9 ± 1.4 vs. 8.0 ± 1.4, p = 0.78; VAS 0 [0-1.3] vs. 0 [0-1.0]. In both groups, two patients (14.3%) reported a redislocation during the observation period. Conclusions: At short- to mid-term follow-up, ABR showed favorable outcomes, low dislocation rates, and high patient satisfaction, regardless of the presence of a GLAD lesion or primary versus recurrent instability. However, follow-up time was heterogeneous, and the follow-up rate was marginal.

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.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability in 488 Adolescents Between 2000 and 2020: Risk Factors for Subsequent Recurrent Instability Requiring Revision Stabilization.

BACKGROUND: After arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for anterior glenohumeral instability (GHI), adolescent athletes have higher rates of subsequent recurrent GHI than any other subpopulation. Elucidating which adolescents are at highest risk of postoperative recurrent GHI may optimize surgical decision-making. PURPOSE: To identify prognostic factors associated with subsequent recurrent GHI requiring revision stabilization surgery (RSS) after ABR. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The study included patients 12 to 21 years old who had undergone ABR for anterior GHI at a pediatric tertiary care hospital by 1 of 5 sports medicine fellowship-trained surgeons between 2000 and 2020. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, with percentage of patients with recurrent GHI undergoing subsequent RSS, was used with a time-to-event outcome analysis. The Cox model effects were expressed as the hazard ratio (HR). All tests were 2-sided, with an alpha of .05. RESULTS: Records of 488 adolescent patients with ABR (78% male; mean age, 16.9 ± 1.98 years) were analyzed. Of these, 86 patients (17.6%) underwent subsequent RSS for recurrent GHI, yielding a cumulative risk of 8.8% at 2 years, 16.5% at 5 years, and 20% at 15 years. RSS occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 2.1 years after ABR. Risk factors for RSS included >1 preoperative dislocation (2 dislocations: HR = 7.4, P = .0003; ≥3 dislocations: HR = 10.9, P < .0001), presence of a Hill-Sachs lesion (small: HR = 2.5, P = .0114; medium-large: HR = 4.2, P = .0004), younger age (1-year decrease: HR = 1.2, P = .0015), and participation in contact sports (HR = 1.8, P = .01). Adolescents with only 1 preoperative dislocation had a cumulative incidence of RSS (3.2%), which was significantly lower than those with 2 (24.2%) or ≥3 preoperative dislocations (33.5%). CONCLUSION: The number of dislocations before index ABR was the strongest risk factor for recurrent GHI requiring RSS in adolescents with anterior GHI, with 2 dislocations conferring >7-fold increased risk compared with a single preoperative dislocation. Other significant risk factors included the presence of a Hill-Sachs lesion, younger age, and participation in contact sports.

Acute Bony Bankart Injury With Glenoid Rim Fracture Treated by Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

A bony Bankart lesion is a torn labrocapsular complex with a glenoid rim fracture. In this case report, a patient with an acute bony Bankart injury presented with severe shoulder pain and limited range of motion following a road traffic accident. The injury was diagnosed through imaging studies and required arthroscopic bony Bankart repair. The post-surgery rehabilitation program restored the patient's shoulder mobility, strength, and stability, significantly improving pain relief and functional ability. Overall, the case report highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and appropriate surgical intervention in acute bony Bankart injuries, followed by a well-structured rehabilitation program to achieve optimal outcomes in pain relief, range of motion, and functional ability.

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.

Minimum 10-year follow-up outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart's repair with metallic anchors: Reliable results with low redislocation rates.

BACKGROUND: With stiff competition from alternative albeit more expensive counterparts, it has become important to establish the applicability of metallic anchors for shoulder instability in the modern era. This can be accomplished, in part, by analysing long-term outcomes. AIM: To analyse minimum 10-year outcomes from 30 patients following arthroscopic anterior stabilisation using metallic anchors. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from arthroscopic Bankart repairs performed using metal anchors during 2007P-2010 were retrospectively analysed in this single-surgeon study. Comprehensive data collection included historical and clinical findings, dislocation details, operative specifics, and follow-up radiological and clinical findings including shoulder scores. The primary outcomes were patient-reported scores (Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], and Rowe scores) and pain and instability on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: A 3% recurrence rate of dislocation was noted at the final follow-up. Total constant scores at 10 years postoperatively measured between 76 and 100 (mean 89) were significantly better than preoperative scores (mean 62.7). Congruous improvements were also noted in the Rowe and ASES scores and VAS at the 10-year review. CONCLUSION: Reliable long-term outcomes with metallic anchors in surgery for shoulder instability can be expected. Our results provide additional evidence of their continued, cost-effective presence in the modern scenario.

Prognostic factors for recurrent instability in recreational athletes following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a retrospective study with an average 4.1-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research has been conducted to investigate the short-term and long-term outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair, yielding varying results across different populations. However, there remains a dearth of studies specifically focused on evaluating outcomes in recreational athletes. METHODS: A retrospective case series study was conducted on recreational athletes who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2013 and 2021. The primary outcome assessed was recurrent instability, defined as dislocation or subluxation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, rates of returning to the same sports (RTS) and RTS at preinjury level, and patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of the Rowe score, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and VAS pain score were performed. Prognostic factors for recurrent instability, including demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the labrum were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients met the selection criteria, with 150 (78.5%) available for the final follow-up. Recurrent instability occurred in 10.7% of patients, with a mean follow-up duration of 4.1 years. Younger age at surgery and more critical glenoid bone loss were significantly associated with recurrent instability (p = .038 and p = .011, respectively). The satisfaction rate regarding surgery was 90.0%. Rates of return to the same sports (RTS) and RTS at preinjury level were 82.0% and 49.3%, respectively. Clinical outcomes measured at the final follow-up were as follows: Rowe score - 92.8; Constant score - 98.0; ASES score - 98.3; VAS pain score - 0.2. Patients with recurrent instability had significantly inferior outcomes in terms of satisfaction rate, RTS at preinjury level rate, Rowe score, and Constant score (p = .000, p = .039, p = .000, and p = .015, respectively). A total of thirty-seven patients underwent MRI examination six months after surgery in our institution. The T2-weighted anterior labrum morphology was found to be poorer in patients with recurrent instability. No significant difference was observed between patients with or without recurrent instability in terms of anterior Slope, anterior labral glenoid height index (LGHI), inferior Slope, inferior LGHI, and T2-weighted inferior labrum morphology. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair can yield satisfactory medium-term outcomes for recreational athletes. Younger age at surgery, more critical glenoid bone loss, and poorer T2-weighted anterior labrum morphology assessed six months postoperatively were significantly associated with recurrent instability.

Glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width percentage score are useful to select optimal operation for the treatment of glenohumeral instability in overhead athletes: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus open Latarjet.

PURPOSE: Glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesion in contact and overhead athletes with subcritical bone loss is challenging to treat with high recurrent instability. Treatment options are arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet operations. However, there is no consensus on their effectiveness. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and return to sports after both operations and whether evaluating the glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width to calculate the total bone loss can help determine the appropriate operation. METHODS: In this retrospective comparative analysis, 30 athletes who underwent index arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (n = 16) or Latarjet procedure (n = 14) between 2017 and 2020 were included. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were routinely performed. The quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), instability severity index (ISI) scores and range of motion (ROM) were recorded preoperatively and at a mean follow-up of 53 months (SD = 12). Follow-up included time-to-return sports, self-perceived sports performance level and complications/recurrent dislocations. RESULTS: Preoperative qDASH, ASES, ISI scores, ages and genders were similar. The Latarjet group had significantly larger glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs width and total bone loss (p < 0.01). Both groups had significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after the operations (p < 0.01). Athletes with a total bone loss <25% underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and total bone loss ≥25% underwent Latarjet procedure, and there were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative PROs, ROM, time-to-return sports and performance. There were no re-dislocations. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage or Latarjet procedure can adequately address glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesions. Patients with total bone loss scores greater than or equal to 25 may particularly benefit from the Latarjet procedure, while the minimally invasive arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage can yield equally satisfying scores for total bone loss less than 25. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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.

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.

Shoulder Instability-Return to Sports After Injury (SIRSI) Scale Shows That Lack of Psychological Readiness Predicts Outcomes and Recurrence Following Surgical Stabilization.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of psychological readiness to return to sports on clinical outcomes and recurrences in athletes who return to sports following shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent shoulder instability surgery between September 2020 and October 2021 (arthroscopic Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped according to the achievement of psychological readiness to return to play using the SIRSI scale (≥ 55 points) measured at 6 months following surgery. Recurrences were measured and functional outcomes were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Rowe, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS and Rowe scores was calculated using the distribution-based method of ½ standard deviation of the delta (difference between postoperative and preoperative scores). The patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the VAS scale was set at 2.5 based on previous literature. To evaluate the predictive ability of SIRSI a regression model analysis and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used. RESULTS: A total of 108 who achieved psychological readiness (PSR) and 41 who did not (NPSR) met the study criteria. PSR achieved significantly higher percentages of MCID and PASS thresholds for VAS than NPSR (MCID: 68.5% vs 48.7%, p=0.026; PASS: 92.5% vs 58.5%, p<0.001). However, there were no differences in the percentage of patients achieving MCID for the Rowe score between groups (98.1% vs 100%, p=0.999). The only strongest independent predictor of postoperative outcomes was being psychologically ready to return to sports. The SIRSI scale had an excellent predictive ability for recurrences (area under curve 0.745, 95% CI 0.5-0.8). Of those who sustained a recurrence, 20% were not psychologically ready compared to 4.3% who were (p= 0.002). A power analysis was not conducted for this study. CONCLUSION: The SIRSI scale is associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and recurrences in patients who returned to sports following shoulder instability surgery. Patients who were not psychologically ready following shoulder instability surgery had worse clinical outcomes with fewer patients achieving clinically significant outcomes (PASS and MCID) for pain, and a higher risk of recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective cohort study.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of Patient Characteristics on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce literature on clinically significant values after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). PURPOSE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds at 1 year for the Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) scores after ABR and to determine the effect of patient characteristics on these metrics after ABR. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing ABR from a single institution between January 2017 and January 2020 was performed. Patients with at least 1 episode of instability and a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: bony defects of >20% on the anteroinferior portion of the glenoid based on a preoperative computed tomography scan; engaging Hill-Sachs lesions at 90° of abduction and 90° of external rotation based on an arthroscopic examination; previous surgery on the same shoulder; multidirectional instability or concomitant repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; superior labral anterior to posterior lesions; posterior labral tears; or humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected both preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores. Distribution-based (one-half the standard deviation of the difference between pre- and postoperative outcome scores) and anchored-based approaches (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point, where sensitivity and specificity were maximized, and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients were included. The distribution-based MCID for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were calculated to be 8.2 and 8.7, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 96% for the Rowe and 96% for ASOSS scores. The PASS threshold for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were ≥80 and ≥90, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS scores after ABR were 86% and 83%, respectively. The MCID and PASS values showed great variability based on sex (men: 8.5 and ≥85 for Rowe / 8.9 and ≥90 for ASOSS, respectively, vs women: 6.7 and ≥73 for Rowe / 8.1 and ≥75 for ASOSS), age (≥21: 8.4 and ≥80 / 9.2 and ≥90 vs <21: 7.8 and ≥75 / 7.7 and ≥85), sports participation (sports: 8.8 and ≥85 / 9.5 and ≥90 vs no sports: 8.1 and ≥75 / 8.6 and ≥80), and type of athlete (competitive: 8.4 and ≥85 / 8.9 and ≥87 vs recreational: 7.5 and ≥73 / 8.1 and ≥68). CONCLUSION: This study identified the MCID and PASS thresholds for the Rowe and ASOSS scores at 1 year after ABR. However, these values showed great variability when accounting for different patient characteristics such as sex, age, sports participation, and type of athlete, highlighting the importance of considering individual patient-specific characteristics for optimal treatment decision-making and ensuring treatment success tailored to each patient's unique needs and expectations.

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.

Humeral Head Articular Cartilage Damage by a Retained Arthroscopic Suture Anchor Inserter in a College Athlete.

Arthroscopic repair of the glenoid labrum has been shown to be a safe and effective method to address recurrent shoulder instability. However, suture anchor devices must be used appropriately and with caution to avoid postoperative complications such as prominence, migration, and loosening, which can result in intraarticular pathology postoperatively. We report a case of significant glenohumeral articular cartilage damage that occurred as a result of a retained broken suture anchor inserter after arthroscopic Bankart repair. This case demonstrates an uncommon but serious complication that can occur during the surgical insertion of suture anchors when performing arthroscopic labral repairs. Although rare, retained foreign bodies must also be considered in the differential of a symptomatic postoperative patient. Thus, postoperative radiographs are also of extreme importance in evaluating a patient with persistent pain and crepitus after surgical glenoid labral repair.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus conservative treatment for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder is vulnerable to dislocation owing to its anatomical structure and the increasing popularity of contact sports in young population. The management of first-time anterior shoulder dislocation in this group is still controversial and the prognosis are varied. This review aimed to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young active patients. METHODS: Databases were searched till November 2021, and comparative studies between arthroscopic Bankart repair and conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young population were selected. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Back Review Group 12-item scale. Outcome measures included recurrence of instability, return to play, subsequent instability surgery, and shoulder functional scores. RESULTS: The search returned 12 eligible trials with 786 participants. All the trials were of prospective design. After arthroscopic Bankart repair, patients experienced significantly less re-dislocation (7.5% vs. 53.0%, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), subluxation (3.1% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), positive apprehension test (7.3% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.002, I2 = 11%), and subsequent surgical treatment for instability (5.6% vs. 37.8%, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) when compared with those underwent conservative management. And more patients returned to play (83.5% vs. 66.0%, p = 0.03, I2 = 81%) after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Outcomes regarding the functional scores did not reach a significant difference between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Bankart repair showed superiority over conservative management in terms of recurrence, return to play, and subsequent instability surgery during the follow-up in young active patients that encountered first episode of dislocation. As long-term prognosis is comparable, an immediate surgical stabilization might not be suitable for everyone.

Clinical Results of Knot-tying Versus Knotless Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Anteroinferior Labral Repair.

Background Arthroscopic repair of glenohumeral instability is becoming an increasingly common procedure. These repairs can be undertaken using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors; there is currently no clear consensus in the literature about what type of repair is most cost-effective and provides superior outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic anteroinferior labral repair (AALR) with either knot-tying or knotless anchors. Methods A single institution retrospective observational cohort study of 122 patients undergoing AALR from January 2014 to June 2021 was conducted. Univariate statistics were used to assess differences in demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes between repair types; multivariate analysis was used to evaluate risk factors for recurrent instability and reoperation. Results Patients undergoing AALR with knotless anchors had a shorter case duration than those with knot-tying anchors (112.64 vs. 89.86 minutes, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in the size of labral tear, presence of a glenoid bone defect, or Hill-Sachs lesion. After controlling for age, BMI, sex, glenoid bone defect, number of preoperative dislocations, and fixation type, only age (OR=0.896, p=0.010) and female sex (OR=5.341, p=0.008) were independent risk factors for recurrent instability and no factors were independent predictors of reoperation. Conclusion Patients undergoing AALR experienced similar rates of reoperation and recurrent instability regardless of whether a knot-tying or knotless repair was performed. The use of knotless suture anchors may improve cost-effectiveness due to decreased surgical time without diminishing postoperative outcomes.