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

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was 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 based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% 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 higher 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, non-operative 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 based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for non-operative 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. Additionally, 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. CONCLUSION: 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 non-operative 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 non-operative management, whether a poster-inferior portal is required.

Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability Literature Shows Limited Reporting of Outcomes in Females: Females Show Similar Outcomes but Higher Rate of Emergency Room Visits and Possible Higher Rates of Complications.

It has been reported that use of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability from 2008-2019 increased 250%. With the rise in utilization, it is imperative to minimize complications. At present, the majority of the literature focuses on male patients, with scant evidence regarding female patients. Outcomes are similar comparing female to male patients, but female patients have higher emergency department postoperative visits than males, requiring specific attention during the post-operative period. In addition, literature reporting complications in females versus males after Latarjet are conflicting; some studies show similar rates of complications, while other studies show higher rates of adverse events in females. Prior consensus statements recommended a) careful dissection; b) identifying the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves; c) preventing overlateralization of the graft; d) tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss; e) accurate screw placement; and f) careful preparation of the glenoid neck and coracoid to reduce rates of non-union or delayed union.

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 amongst 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" 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 (CMS) out of 100. A chi-square test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three studies were included in the analysis with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. Encompassing a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of re-dislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective (p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective (p = 0.004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (p = 0.013) There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play in prospective and retrospective studies was 90% and 91%, respectively (p=0.548). The overall rate of complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% and 0.78% in the retrospective studies (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations, subluxations are higher in prospective studies compared to 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.

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.

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 two different anchor-based methods of calculating MCID for a battery of PROMs, a standard receiver operator curve (ROC) -based MCIDs and baseline-adjusted ROC 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 PROMs battery included Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (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 MCIDs were employed to determine if the calculated MCIDs were both statistically and theoretically valid (95% confidence interval either completely negative or positive). RESULTS: There were 117 patients (136 operations) identified, comprised of 83% males with a mean age of 35.7 ± 10.4 years and 47% arthroscopic labral repair/capsulorrhaphy. Using the standard, anchor-based ROC 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 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 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 method was more effective at discerning changes across a battery of PROMs among the same cohort.

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.

Type V Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) 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-posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA 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 < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (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 ASES score was 88.3, the mean SSV score was 85.5%, and the mean VAS 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 VAS pain scores (MD; 0.15, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, p = 0.29) and recurrence rates (RR; 1.38, 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.15, I2 = 0%, p = 0.16). 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.

Bone Marrow Stimulation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a "crimson duvet." PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P = .61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P = .12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P = .31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P = .89). CONCLUSION: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Similar outcomes between biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair for SLAP tears in younger patients - A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to ascertain if biceps tenodesis or superior-labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair results in superior clinical outcomes in the treatment of type II SLAP tears in patients under 40. METHODS: A systematic search of articles in Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing biceps tenodesis to repair in type II SLAP tears in patients under 40 were included. Clinical outcomes were extracted including return to play, reoperations, ASES, and VAS for pain. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Biceps tenodesis resulted in comparable rates of return to play compared to SLAP repair (78.5% vs 67.7%, p â€‹= â€‹0.33), and there was no significant difference in return to play in overhead athletes (83.6% vs 74%, p â€‹= â€‹0.82). There was no significant difference in ASES score (87.2 vs 86.2, p â€‹= â€‹0.27) or VAS score for pain (1.8 vs 2.1, p â€‹= â€‹0.48). There was no significant difference in re-operation rates (2.9% vs 10.8%, p â€‹= â€‹0.22). CONCLUSION: This study found that biceps tenodesis has no significant difference in rates of return to play in athletes, as well as in functional outcome scores and rates of revision surgery in younger patients compared to SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of Level III studies.

No Difference in Recurrent Instability Between Knotted and Knotless Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Treatment of Isolated Posterior Labral Tears: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare clinical failure, recurrent instability, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and return to sport (RTS) between knotted and knotless fixation methods in arthroscopic posterior labral repair for isolated posterior shoulder instability (PSI). Methods: Multiple databases were queried according to Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies with Level I to IV evidence, including knotted and knotless suture anchors for arthroscopic posterior labral repair. Combined anterior and posterior instability, multidirectional instability, SLAP injuries, unspecified repair techniques, majority open procedures, and revision surgery were excluded. Results: Screening yielded 17 full-text articles reporting on 852 shoulders undergoing posterior labral repair. Recurrent instability ranged from 0% to 21%, and the rate of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 11% in knotted only, 0% in knotless only, and 2.0% to 8.1% in knotted and knotless studies. Six studies with both pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores and 7 studies with both pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Score scores all showed improvement in scores after intervention regardless of repair technique. Thirteen studies reported RTS or duty rates with a minimum of 79%. Conclusions: Overall recurrent instability after posterior labral repair for isolated PSI was low with improvement in PROMs and favorable RTS rates regardless of fixation method. There was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods for isolated posterior labral repair. However, the current literature is predominantly limited by Level III and IV evidence. The quality of literature and lack of standardization on the definition of clinical failure and recurrent instability among surgeons preclude any definitive conclusion regarding one clinically superior fixation method. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Favorable short-term outcomes of micronized allogenic cartilage scaffold for glenoid cartilage defects associated with posterior glenohumeral instability.

Purpose: To determine clinical outcomes associated with micronized allogenic cartilage scaffold use for treatment of posterior glenoid cartilage defects at 2 years. Study Design: Case series. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment of a symptomatic posterior glenoid cartilage defect with micronized allogenic cartilage scaffold between January 2019 and December 2020. The primary outcome was subjective shoulder value (SSV) at latest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), recurrence of instability, and range of motion (ROM). Results: Seven patients, including 4 in the setting of primary posterior instability and 3 in the setting of recurrent symptoms after arthroscopic posterior glenohumeral stabilization, were included in the analysis with a mean follow up of 2.6 years (range, 2-3.7 years). Statistically significant improvements were seen in SSV (median = 40, interquartile range [IQR] = 40-50 before surgery; vs median = 85, IQR = 67.5-87.5 after surgery; P = .018) and VAS (median = 4, IQR = 4-6.3 before surgery; vs median = 1, IQR = 0-1.5 after surgery; P = .010). No significant differences were seen in ROM. There were no cases of recurrent instability or reoperation. Conclusions: The use of micronized allogenic cartilage scaffold for glenoid cartilage defects is associated with clinical improvement at 2-year follow-up. This is the case when performed in conjunction with index posterior labral repair when there is a concomitant glenoid cartilage defect or when performed in the setting of persistent pain and mechanical symptoms after prior posterior labral repair. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Beach-Chair Versus Lateral Decubitus Positioning for Primary Arthroscopic Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Consecutive Series of 641 Shoulders.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data comparing the beach-chair (BC) versus lateral decubitus (LD) position for arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization. PURPOSE: To identify predictors of instability recurrence and revision after anterior shoulder stabilization and evaluate surgical position and glenoid bone loss as independent predictors of recurrence and revision at short- and midterm follow-ups. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A consecutive series of 641 arthroscopic anterior stabilization procedures were performed from 2005 to 2019. All shoulders were evaluated for glenohumeral bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and revision. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships of outcomes with age, position, glenoid bone loss group, and track. RESULTS: A total of 641 shoulders with a mean age of 22.3 years (SD, 4.45 years) underwent stabilization and were followed for a mean of 6 years. The overall 1-year recurrent instability rate was 3.3% (21/641) and the revision rate was 2.8% (18/641). At 1 year, recurrence was observed in 2.3% (11/487) and 6.5% (10/154) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. The 5-year recurrence and revision rates were 15.7% (60/383) and 12.8% (49/383), respectively. At 5 years, recurrence was observed in 16.4% (48/293) and 13.3% (12/90) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that surgical position was not associated with a risk of recurrence after 1 year (odds ratio [OR] for LD vs BC, 1.39; P = .56) and 5 years (OR for LD vs BC, 1.32; P = .43), although younger age at index surgery was associated with a higher risk of instability recurrence (OR, 1.73 per SD [4.1 years] decrease in age; P < .03). After 1 and 5 years, surgical position results were similar in a separate multivariable logistic regression model of revision surgery as the dependent variable, when adjusted for age, surgical position, bone loss group, and track. At 5 years, younger age was an independent risk factor for revision: OR 1.68 per SD (4.1 years) decrease in age (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Among fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, there was no difference in rates of recurrence and revision surgery after performing arthroscopic anterior stabilization in either the BC or the LD position at 1- and 5-year follow-ups. In multivariable analysis, younger age, but not surgical position, was an independent risk factor for recurrence.

Primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the setting of previously failed Bankart repair: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to compare the outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair versus those undergoing the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A systematic search in Pubmed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Cohort studies comparing outcomes in the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery versus the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: Ten studies with 1913 patients were included. There was a significantly lower rate of recurrent instability in those with a Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 12.1%, p â€‹= â€‹0.007). There was also a significantly lower rate of complications with the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (6.2% vs 10.2%, p â€‹= â€‹0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the rate of revision surgery in favour of the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 10.9%, p â€‹= â€‹0.02). However, there were similar rates of redislocations (2.8% vs 3.4%, p â€‹= â€‹0.82) and return to play (67.7% vs 78.5%, p â€‹= â€‹0.30) between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: This study found that the Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for a previously failed Bankart repair resulted in higher rates of complications, recurrent instability, and revisions than the Latarjet procedure performed as a primary procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Level III studies.

Review of Burkhart and DeBeer's (2000) article on traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair: Where have we taken the concept of glenoid bone loss in 2023?

This classic discusses the original publication by Burkhart and DeBeer "Traumatic Glenohumeral Bone Defects and Their Relationship to Failure of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair" published in 2000 in Arthroscopy. At that time, the authors sought to understand the reasons behind the failure of arthroscopic soft tissue repair. Based on their findings, the authors introduced the concept of the inverted pear glenoid and engaging Hill-Sachs lesion which is now part of the orthopedic lexicon. The importance of bony pathologic changes in anterior glenohumeral instability has become so apparent, that it now forms the basis of clinical understanding and underpins treatment algorithms. Since this publication over 20 years ago, the idea of glenohumeral bone loss has been extensively explored and refined. There is no doubt of the importance of structural bone loss yet there is still uncertainty as to the best management of those with subcritical bone loss. The purpose of revisiting this classic article is to look at where we are in understanding recurrent instability and bony deficiency while appreciating how far we have come. This review begins with a detailed summary of the classic article along with a historic perspective. Next, we look at the current evidence as it pertains to the classic article and how modern technology and innovation has advanced our ability to assess and quantify glenohumeral bone loss. We finish with expert commentary on the topic from two current surgeons with a research interest in shoulder instability to offer an insight into how modern surgeons view and address this issue. One of the original authors also reflects on the topic. The findings of this classic study changed the way we think about shoulder instability and opened the doors to an exciting body of research that is still growing today. Future research offers an opportunity for high quality evidence to guide management in the group of patients with subcritical bone loss and we eagerly await the results.