Can the presence of SLAP-5 lesions be predicted by using the critical shoulder angle in traumatic anterior shoulder instability?

OBJECTIVE: Although SLAP-5 lesions are associated with recurrent dislocations, their causes and pathomechanisms have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the association between SLAP-5 lesions and scapular morphology in traumatic anterior shoulder instability (ASI). We hypothesized that there may be a relationship between SLAP-5 lesions and scapular morphology in traumatic ASI patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 74 patients with isolated Bankart lesions and 69 with SLAP-5 lesions who underwent arthroscopic labral repair for ASI. Critical shoulder angle (CSA) was measured on the roentgenograms, while glenoid inclination (GI) and glenoid version (GV) were measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by two observers in two separate sessions blinded to each other. Both groups were compared in terms of CSA, GI, and GV. RESULTS: The mean ages of Bankart and SLAP-5 patients were 28.4±9.1 and 27.9±7.7 (P=0.89), respectively; their mean CSA values were 33.1°±2.6° and 28.2°±2.4°, respectively (P<0.001). The ROC analysis's cut-off value was 30.5°, with 75.0% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity (AUC = 0.830). SLAP-5 lesions were more common on the dominant side than isolated Bankart lesions (P=0.021), but no difference was found between the groups in terms of GI and GV (P=0.334, P=0.081, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In ASI, low CSA values appeared to be related to SLAP-5 lesions, and the cut-off value of CSA for SLAP lesion formation was 30.5° with 75.0% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity. Scapula morphology may be related to the SLAP-5 lesions, and CSA can be used as an additional parameter in provocative diagnostic tests and medical imaging techniques for the detection of SLAP lesions accompanying Bankart lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III retrospective case-control study.

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine reported MCID and PASS values for PROMs following shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Secondarily, our aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS usage in studies on shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of MCID and PASS values following Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English, and studies reporting utilization MCID or PASS for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following Latarjet, Bankart, Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using median and range. Categorical variables, including PROMs reported and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. As MCID is a patient-level metric and not a group-level metric, the authors validated that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects that met or exceeded the MCID. RESULTS: A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely utilized outcome threshold which was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit (SCB) or maximal outcome improvement (MOI). CONCLUSION: Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. While MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable inter-study variability observed in their values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental, since they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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 Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome score (CS), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Dislocations, subluxations, complications, pre and postoperative level of activity and degree of osteoarthritis were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients, mean age at revision surgery 31.2 ± 9.1 and with either one (n = 59), two (n = 13), or three (n = 4) arthroscopic previous stabilizations underwent revision surgery using arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were studied. Postoperatively, the mean ROWE and CS scores increased from 41.8 ± 16 to 90.7 ± 14.3 (p<0.001) and from 50.5 ± 13.8 to 90.5 ± 10.3 (p<0.001), respectively. WOSI decreased from 1247 ± 367.6 to 548.9 ± 363 at the final follow-up (p<0.001). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 23.1 months, 64 shoulders (83.1%) were subjectively graded as good to excellent using SANE score. Grade 1, 2, and 3 osteoarthritis, according to Ogawa et al were found in 18 (23.4%), 6 (7.8%), and 3 (3.9%) shoulders, respectively. Six dislocations after revision surgery were reported (7.8%). In four failed cases an Eden-Hybinette procedure was conducted and in remaining two patients an arthroscopic extraarticular anterior capsular reinforcement was performed. Significantly decreased level of athletic activity was observed postoperatively (p= 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Latarjet for revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory patient-reported subjective outcomes with low rate of recurrences and complications. However, decreased level of athletic activity is expected.

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.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

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

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

Management of the In-Season Athlete with an Anterior Shoulder Dislocation.

Management of the in-season athlete presenting with an anterior shoulder dislocation is a nuanced process that continues to be refined. Options and pathways between nonoperative and operative treatment have undergone many iterations over a century of orthopedic research and advancement. It requires an understanding of sport-specific demands and the individual athlete's goals. The orthopedic surgeon must have mastery of the natural history, treatment options, and outcomes of anterior shoulder dislocations. Balance of these factors is delicate and highly individualized for each athlete; and is why management of the in-season athlete with an anterior shoulder dislocation remains an art for the orthopedic surgeon.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair vs. Latarjet Procedure for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rates in General and Athletic Populations.

BACKGROUND: The Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure are both effective surgical methods for treating repeated recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. However, there is still little consensus regarding the standard treatment for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Typically, the choice of treatment has been influenced more by training and tradition rather than the existing evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes, recurrence, and complications between the two procedures, among both athletic and non-athletic cohorts. METHODS: Relevant clinical trials were identified through a systematic search of databases in April 2023 including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. RCTs and cohort studies were included if they compared patient-reported outcomes or complication rates of open Latarjet procedure versus arthroscopic Bankart repair. Continuous data, such as patient-reported outcomes were pooled as the weighted mean difference (WMD). For dichotomous data such as recurrence and revision rates, the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: 21 clinical studies (3 RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis involving a total of 13176 operated shoulders. Arthroscopic Bankart showed a 3.08 times higher risk of recurrence and revision due to post operation instability (RR=3.08, 95% CI: 2.03 to 4.68) compared to those who had the Latarjet approach. The ROWE score, was higher in the Latarjet group by an average of 4.55 points (95% CI: 2.41 to 6.68). This difference was more pronounced in athletes, with an increase of 5.47 points (95% CI: 0.16 to 10.78), compared to the non-athletic population: 4.03 (95% CI: 2.04 to 6.02). Return to sport time was shorter by 0.40 months (95% CI: -0.75 to -0.05) in the Latarjet group. The total complication rate was approximately 47% lower in the Bankart group (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31-0.90). Additionally, the risk of hematoma was 75% lower in patients undergoing the arthroscopic Bankart compared to the Latarjet procedure. External rotation, assessed both in abduction and adduction of the arm, as well as forward elevation, show no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the Latarjet procedure has a lower recurrence rate, excels in patient-reported outcomes, and requires less time for return to sports. Thus, it may be a superior alternative to arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, it is still associated with a higher incidence of complications.

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, or the use of various allografts. Technological 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.

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.

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.

Type V superior labrum anterior to posterior repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were males (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 88.3, the mean subjective shoulder value score was 85.5%, and the mean visual analog scale pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference; 0.15, 95% confidence interval, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, P = .29) and recurrence rates (risk ratio; 1.38, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.15, I2 = 0%, P = .16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

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.