Editorial Commentary: At Present, ChatGPT Cannot Be Relied Upon to Answer Patient Questions and Requires Physician Expertise to Interpret Answers for Patients.

ChatGPT is designed to provide accurate and reliable information to the best of its abilities based on the data input and knowledge available. Thus, ChatGPT is being studied as a patient information tool. This artificial intelligence (AI) tool has been shown to frequently provide technically correct information but with limitations. ChatGPT provides different answers to similar questions based on the prompts, and patients may not have expertise in prompting ChatGPT to elicit a best answer. (Prompting large language models has been shown to be a skill that can improve.) Of greater concern, ChatGPT fails to provide sources or references for its answers. At present, ChatGPT cannot be relied upon to address patient questions; in the future, ChatGPT will improve. Today, AI requires physician expertise to interpret AI answers for patients.

Editorial Commentary: Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability Literature Shows Limited Reporting of Outcomes in Female Patients: Female Patients Show Similar Outcomes but Greater Rate of Emergency Department Visits and Possible Greater of Complications.

It has been reported that use of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability increased 250% from 2008 to 2019. With this increase in use, it is imperative to minimize complications. At present, most literature focuses on male patients, with scant evidence regarding female patients. Outcomes are similar when female with male patients are compared, but female patients have greater postoperative visits to the emergency department than male patients, which requires specific attention during the postoperative period. In addition, the literature reporting complications in female versus male patients after Latarjet is conflicting; some studies show similar rates of complications, whereas other studies show greater rates of adverse events in female patients. Previous consensus statements recommended (1) careful dissection; (2) identification of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves; (3) prevention of overlateralization of the graft; (4) the use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss; (5) accurate screw placement; and (6) careful preparation of the glenoid neck and coracoid to reduce rates of nonunion or delayed union.

Young Collision Athletes Have High Rate of Return to Play and Good Clinical Outcomes Following Open Latarjet Procedure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate return to play (RTP), clinical outcomes, and recurrence rates in collision athletes 20 years of age and younger who underwent open Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A retrospective review of collision athletes 20 years of age and younger, who underwent an open Latarjet procedure by a single surgeon between the years of 2010-2020 was carried out. Inclusion criteria were 1) collision athlete, 2) underwent open Latarjet procedure, 3) 16-20 years old, and 4) minimum 24-month follow-up. Exclusion criteria were 1) other pathology of the ipsilateral shoulder and 2) noncollision athlete. Rate of RTP, time to RTP, rate of return to preinjury level, the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury score (SIRSI) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and recurrence events were recorded. Quantitative statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The study included 105 male collision athletes with a mean age of 18.6 ± 1.0 years (range: 17-20). The mean follow-up for patients was 36 ± 26.2 months. A total of 93 (88.6%) RTP at a mean time of 6.3 ± 2.2 months, with 73 (69.5%) returning to their preinjury level of participation. The mean SIRSI score was 69.2 ± 21.8, the mean VAS score was 2.3 ± 2.1, and the mean SSV score was 84.1 ± 16.8. Five patients (4.8%) redislocated their shoulder, with 4 of these requiring a further surgery (3.8%). Two patients (1.9%) reported incidents of subluxation. CONCLUSIONS: The open Latarjet procedure in young collision athletes results in high rates of RTP, excellent functional outcomes and low recurrence rates at mid-term follow-up. Additionally, complication rates are low in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

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

PURPOSE: To examine reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable satisfactory state (PASS) values for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Our secondary 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 use in studies on shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of MCID and PASS values after 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 use of MCID or PASS for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) after Latarjet, Bankart, and Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using medians and ranges. Categorical variables, including PROMs and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. Because MCID is a patient-level rather than a group-level metric, the authors confirmed that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects who 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 used outcome threshold and 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 (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (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 (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 or maximal outcome improvement. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Although MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable interstudy 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 because they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Bioinductive Collagen Implant Has Potential to Improve Rotator Cuff Healing: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical studies on bioinductive collagen implant (BCI) for the treatment of rotator cuff tears. 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 guidelines. Clinical studies reporting BCI for rotator cuff tears were included. Quantitive and qualitative data were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included. In patients with full-thickness tears, 7 of the 8 studies with pre- to postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean pre- to postoperative ASES scores, with 75% to 100% of patients meeting the minimal clinically important difference. In those with partial-thickness tears, 7 of the 8 studies with pre- to postoperative ASES scores demonstrated statistically significant improvements in mean pre- to postoperative ASES scores, with 54.4% to 100% of patients meeting the minimal clinically important difference. For studies that quantified percent increases in tendon thickness, the reported increases ranged from 13% to 44% in full-thickness tears and 14% to 60% in partial-thickness tears. Six studies evaluated rotator cuff retears after BCI treatment in the full-thickness cohort, with rates reported ranging from 0% to 9%. Five studies evaluated rotator cuff retears after BCI treatment in the partial-thickness cohort, with rates reported ranging from 0% to 18%. Two of the included studies found that BCI was cost-effective due to the increased tendon healing, with cost savings of $5,338 to $13,061 per healed rotator cuff tendon. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on rotator cuff tear augmentation with BCI has shown consistently reported good results. Additionally, there was evidence of low retear rates and consistently improved tendon thickness with BCI, with 2 randomized controlled trials showing improved tendon healing with BCI. However, there appears to be a higher rate of adhesive capsulitis reported. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I, III, and IV studies.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part II-Glenoid Bone Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on glenoid bone grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their greater risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

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.

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.

Minimal important clinical difference values are not uniformly valid in the active duty military population recovering from shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple methods for calculating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold, and previous reports highlight heterogeneity and limitations of anchor-based and distribution-based analyses. The Warfighter Readiness Survey assesses the perception of a military population's fitness to deploy and may be used as a functional index in anchor-based MCID calculations. The purpose of the current study in a physically demanding population undergoing shoulder surgery was to compare the yields of 2 different anchor-based methods of calculating MCID for a battery of PROMs, a standard receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-based MCIDs and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs. METHODS: All service members enrolled prospectively in a multicenter database with prior shoulder surgery that completed pre- and postoperative PROMs at a minimum of 12 months were included. The PROM battery included Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI), and the Warfighter Readiness Survey. Standard anchor-based and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs were employed to determine if the calculated MCIDs were both statistically and theoretically valid (95% confidence interval [CI] either completely negative or positive). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (136 operations) were identified, comprising 83% males with a mean age of 35.7 ± 10.4 years and 47% arthroscopic labral repair/capsulorrhaphy. Using the standard, anchor-based ROC curve MCID calculation, the area under the curve (AUC) for SANE, ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI were greater than 0.5 (statistically valid). For ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI, the calculated MCID 95% CI all crossed 0 (theoretically invalid). Using the baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCID calculation, the MCID estimates for SANE, ASES, and PROMIS PI were both statistically and theoretically valid if the baseline score was less than 70.5, 69, and 65.7. CONCLUSION: When MCIDs were calculated and anchored to the results of standard, anchor-based MCID, a standard ROC curve analysis did not yield statistically or theoretically valid results across a battery of PROMs commonly used to assess outcomes after shoulder surgery in the active duty military population. Conversely, a baseline-adjusted ROC curve method was more effective at discerning changes across a battery of PROMs among the same cohort.

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.

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.

Outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a 2-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171 of 634) for patients <20 years old compared with 13.3% (197 of 1485) for older patients (P < .001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (odds ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29 of 156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors, compared with 18.1% (89 of 491) with 3 or more anchors (P = .06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in High Failure Rates and a Low Return to Duty Rate Without Recurrent Instability.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine, in a military population without critical bone loss, the rate of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic stabilization for failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: Forty-one revision arthroscopic stabilizations were performed at a single military institution between 2005 to 2016 for recurrent anterior shoulder instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Minimum follow-up was 2 years, and shoulders with glenoid bone loss >20% were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of failure, defined by recurrent instability. RESULTS: Age at revision surgery averaged 22.9 ± 4.3 years, and 88% were either service academy cadets or active duty combat arms soldiers. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years. Twenty-three patients (56%) returned to duty without recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic stabilization. Eighteen patients (44%) experienced recurrent instability after return to duty. Glenoid bone loss averaged 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-9.2%) in the successful group and 5.7% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.3%) in the failure group (P = .808). CONCLUSIONS: Revision arthroscopic stabilization of failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair has a failure rate of 44% in a young military population. The similar amounts of bone loss between groups indicates that bone loss is not the primary determinant of failure in revision arthroscopic stabilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Case Series.

Treatment Following a First-Time Shoulder Dislocation: What Should I Do?

A first-time shoulder dislocation is a challenging topic that requires consideration of anatomic and patient-specific factors. Initial management is predicated on determining functional demands, activity level, and expectations of the patient, in addition to assessing the risk of recurrent instability. When considering surgical indications, it is imperative to understand the biomechanical implications of injury to the glenohumeral joint complex and how specific surgical procedures can restore stability. It is important to provide an overview of the current treatment algorithm for management of first-time shoulder dislocation, with a special focus on diagnosis and intervention in the young athlete.

Survival of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in active-duty military populations.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament tears and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are common in young athletes. The modifiable and non-modifiable factors contributing to ACLR failure and reoperation are incompletely understood. The purpose of this study was to determine ACLR failure rates in a physically high-demand population and identify the patient-specific risk factors, including prolonged time between diagnosis and surgical correction, that portend failure. METHODS: A consecutive series of military service members with ACLR with and without concomitant procedures (meniscus [M] and/or cartilage [C]) done at military facilities between 2008 and 2011 was completed via the Military Health System Data Repository. This was a consecutive series of patients without a history of knee surgery for two years prior to the primary ACLR. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were estimated and evaluated with Wilcoxon test. Cox proportional hazard models calculated hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to identify demographic and surgical factors that influenced ACLR failure. RESULTS: Of the 2735 primary ACLRs included in the study, 484/2,735 (18%) experienced ACLR failure within four years, including (261/2,735) (10%) undergoing revision ACLR and (224/2,735) (8%) due to medical separation. The factors that increased failure include Army Service (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.67, 2.87), > 180 days from injury to ACLR (HR 1.550, 95% CI 1.157, 2.076), tobacco use (HR 1.429 95% CI 1.174, 1.738), and younger patient age (HR 1.024, 95% CI 1.004, 1.044). CONCLUSION: The overall clinical failure rate of service members with ACLR is 17.7% with minimum four-year follow-up, where more patients are likely to fail due to revision surgery than medical separation. The cumulative probability of survival at 4 years was 78.5%. Smoking cessation and treating ACLR patients promptly are modifiable risk factors impacting either graft failure or medical separation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Acromion morphology is associated with glenoid bone loss in posterior glenohumeral instability.

BACKGROUND: The acromion morphology in a shoulder with posterior instability differs from that of a shoulder without glenohumeral instability. Specifically, the acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt, greater posterior acromial height, and less posterior coverage is associated with posterior instability. However, the association between acromion morphology and glenoid bone loss (GBL) in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability has not previously been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether acromial morphology influences the extent or pattern of posterior GBL in a cohort of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study identified 89 shoulders with unidirectional posterior glenohumeral instability. Total area GBL was measured using the best-fit circle method on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Shoulders were divided into 3 groups: (1) no GBL (n = 30), (2) GBL 0%-13.5% (n = 45), or (3) GBL ≥13.5% (n = 14). Acromion measurements were performed on MRI and included acromial tilt, posterior acromial height, anterior acromial coverage, and posterior acromial coverage. RESULTS: Patients without GBL had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5° ± 1.4°) compared with those with 0%-13.5% GBL (64.3° ± 1.5°) or GBL ≥13.5% (67.7° ± 1.8°) (P = .004). Patients without GBL also had greater posterior coverage (65.4° ± 1.7°) compared with those with GBL (60.3° ± 1.4°) (P = .015). Posterior acromion height was not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that an acromion with a flatter sagittal tilt and less posterior coverage is associated with GBL in the setting of posterior glenohumeral instability. This is important to consider as posterior GBL has been identified as a risk factor for failure of posterior soft tissue-stabilizing procedures.