Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied. HYPOTHESIS: Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability. RESULTS: In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions. CONCLUSION: Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Bankart and Latarjet Procedures Show Different Complications at Different Time Periods.

In patients with shoulder instability, arthroscopic Bankart procedure results in a high recurrence rate if there is associated bone loss, even small-to-moderate bone loss. The Latarjet procedure mitigates against recurrence in such cases but has greater short-term (30-day) complications than an arthroscopic Bankart and a greater rate of revision or reoperation. In truth, short-term complications are low with both procedures. That said, complications after arthroscopic Bankart are less likely to manifest in the short term, and possible future failure is generally not discovered until after a patient is released and returns to sports and/or greater levels of activity. The ultimate pros and cons of each procedure require long-term follow-up. That said, in the short term after Latarjet, surgeons should be mindful to monitor for early infection, hematoma, and hardware malposition or failure. In the long term after Latarjet, surgeons could monitor for graft resorption, nonunion of the graft, hardware prominence, and postsurgical arthritis.

The arthroscopic double-button Latarjet does not modify the static posterior translation of the humeral head.

INTRODUCTION: The Latarjet procedure treats anterior instability of the shoulder and is based on a triple anterior lock, where the conjoint tendon straps the lower third of the subscapularis muscle. Excessive posterior translation of the humeral head is a known risk factor for shoulder osteoarthritis. No in vivo study has investigated the effect of the bone block on the posterior static translation of the humeral epiphysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the bone block on the static posterior translation of the humeral head. The hypothesis was that this procedure increased this translation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients treated arthroscopically for anterior shoulder instability by a double-button Latarjet. An independent examiner analyzed the CT scans preoperatively, at 15 days, and at least 6 months postoperatively according to a standardized protocol. The analysis focused on the position of the bone block in the axial and coronal planes relative to the glenoid. The posterior translation was automatically calculated using the Blueprint© planning software. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included with a mean age of 25 years (16-43), according to a 4M/1F sex ratio. The graft was perfectly flush to the subchondral bone in 63% (n=22) of cases and subequatorial in 91% (n=32). Preoperative posterior humeral translation was 52%. The mean immediate postoperative posterior humeral translation was 56%, and 57% at more than 6 months. The change in mean posterior humeral translation between preoperative/6 months was +0.94% [-20%; +12%] (p=0.29) and immediate postoperative/6 months +0.34% [-18%; +15%] (p=0.84). Gender, hypermobility and the axial position of the bone block did not influence the change in posterior humeral translation. The equatorial position of the bone block appeared to increase posterior humeral translation by +10%±5.2% [-0.427; 20.823] (p=0.07). CONCLUSION: This work refutes our initial hypothesis. The change in static posterior humeral translation after arthroscopic Latarjet bone block remains stable at more than 6 months of follow-up. This procedure does not alter the anatomical position of the humeral head in relation to the glenoid. On the other hand, a more cranial positioning of the bone block could have an influence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Editorial Commentary: Immediate Surgical Stabilization Following a First-Time Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Still the Best Evidence-Based Approach.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations are unfortunately common. The initial dislocation is enough to cause permanent anatomic and biomechanical alterations to the glenohumeral joint, which increases the likelihood of further events. When a patient crosses into the multiple dislocator category, further soft-tissue and bony injury occurs. This is almost certainly the reason that the number of preoperative dislocations significantly diminishes the success of an arthroscopic stabilization and increases the need for a more aggressive approach that may carry greater risks of complications. When it comes to recurrent instability, there remains very little doubt regarding the appropriate treatment for a first-time traumatic dislocation: immediate surgical stabilization! Assuming no significant glenoid or humeral bone loss, arthroscopic stabilization remains an effective surgery with a high-benefit, low-risk profile, especially when combined with a remplissage in high-risk circumstances. At least 4 randomized controlled trials support immediate versus nonoperative management for every outcome measured: recurrence, return to sport, patient-reported outcomes, and sustained event-free survival, especially pronounced at 2 years. The decision to recommend surgery, is of course, not always straightforward, necessitating an informed discussion with the patient and the family, especially when other outcomes such as return to play are deemed equally relevant and can be successfully achieved with nonoperative management. Nonetheless, more than any other outcome measure, is there a more important outcome than recurrence regarding long-term health implications? Lastly, can we do better with study designs and outcome measures to better understand risk factors to identify patients better suited for surgery after a first-time event than others? Absolutely. But until then, when up to 60% can sustain a recurrent dislocation in this population, and up to 90% in high-risk individuals, the odds are not in my favor with nonoperative treatment. Despite potential limitations in our current literature, immediate surgery following a first-time dislocation is still the best evidence-based approach.

Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Latarjet has become an increasingly popular treatment option for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. With the reported complication rates for primary Latarjet surgery, there are concerns about the complications of Latarjet as a revision surgery. It remains unclear if poor results after previous surgical management can be improved with revision Latarjet as well as with primary Latarjet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on 3 databases for studies that compared primary Latarjet with revision Latarjet used after failed arthroscopic stabilization or failed free bone block procedures. From the included studies, demographic data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included for data analysis. Compared with the primary Latarjet cohort, revision Latarjet cohorts had a higher infection rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; RR 0.46, P = .039). The primary Latarjet group showed a greater rate of return to sport (89.7% vs. 80.5%; RR 1.12, P = .41) and less subjective feeling of instability (12.6% vs. 20.9%; RR 0.60, P = .085) compared with the revision Latarjet group; however, this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in complication rates, reoperation, recurrence, and range of motion between primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet groups. Clinical outcome scores such as visual analog scale and Rowe scores were not significantly different between the cohorts. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment.

Glenoid Bone Loss in Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss has been reported to occur in as many as 86% of patients with recurrent shoulder stability. This systematic review evaluated the amount of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation and with worse patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. We hypothesized that the percentage of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair is lower than the previously proposed critical value of 25%. METHODS: The systematic review included 528 patients with glenoid bone loss from 3 clinical studies. The percentage of bone loss was the value quantified and reported in each study. Failure was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation. The percentage of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation after arthroscopic Bankart labral repair was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Recurrent dislocation or subluxation occurred in 23.7% (125) of 528 patients in the pooled study cohort. There was a significant difference in age between those in whom the arthroscopic Bankart repair failed and those in whom it did not (22.9 versus 24.3 years; p = 0.009). The ROC curve analysis demonstrated that ≥16.0% glenoid bone loss was predictive of recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation (Youden index = 0.59, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 80%). In patients who did not sustain a recurrent dislocation or subluxation, the ROC curve analysis demonstrated that 20.0% glenoid bone loss was predictive of a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score of <85% (Youden index = 0.93, sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 100%). CONCLUSIONS: The critical amount of glenoid bone loss associated with an increased risk of persistent instability was found to be less than previously reported. Glenoid bone loss of ≥16.0% was found to place patients at higher risk for recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation after treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does glenoid bone loss accompany posterior shoulder instability with only labral tear? A magnetic resonance imaging-based study.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to investigate bone loss in the glenoid with magnetic resonance imaging in posterior shoulder instability with only a labral tear. METHODS: A total of 76 patients operated on because of posterior and anteroposterior shoulder instability only with a labral tear between 2006 and 2019 (n = 40 and n = 36, respectively) were included in this study. The instability type, a presence of an additional superior labrum anteroposterior (SLAP) lesion, the number of dislocations, and the magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements (the glenoid diameter and the bone defect size in the glenoid, the Hill-Sachs lesion [HSL] and the reverse HSL [rHSL] length, the angle and the arc length of HSL and rHSL, and the humerus head diameter and its area) were analyzed. RESULTS: The size of the anterior glenoid defect, the rHSL measurements (length, angle, and arc length), and the ratio of the anterior glenoid defect size to the glenoid diameter were significantly higher for anteroposterior instability (P < .01) cases. There was no significant difference (P = .49, .64, and .82, respectively) for the presence of an additional SLAP pathology, the glenoid diameter, the posterior glenoid defect, and the ratio of the posterior glenoid defect size to the glenoid diameter in posterior and anteroposterior instability groups. The increased number of dislocations was associated with increased rHSL length and total arc length (P = .04 and .03, respectively). An additional SLAP lesion in posterior shoulder instabilities was not associated with the bone defect size (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Although the posterior shoulder instability with only a labral tear is likely to cause a bone defect, we have shown that the instability is not expected to be caused by the bone defect. Therefore, this study points out that only soft tissue repair without considering the bone defect could be promising in this patient group.

Bilateral Locked Posterior Fracture-Dislocation of the Shoulder After Epileptic Seizures Secondary to Cavernous Hemangioma: A Case Report and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND Posterior shoulder dislocation is an uncommon injury, accounting for less than 5% of all glenohumeral dislocations. Bilateral locked posterior shoulder fracture-dislocation is an extremely rare entity with an incidence of 0.6 cases/100 000 people/year. A few reports have been published in the literature, predominantly associated with epileptic seizures. CASE REPORT We present a rare case of a 55-year-old male patient with a history of epileptic seizures, who presented with bilateral, locked, posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder following an epileptic seizure. The patient was diagnosed with a cavernous hemangioma, which caused his epileptic episode. He was treated operatively, with a modified McLaughlin procedure performed on both sides, at 1 stage, by 2 surgical teams. The cavernous hemangioma was also resected 2 months later. After a follow-up period of 18 months, no recurrent episodes of instability or dislocation were identified. Full range of motion was present on both sides, with good clinical and radiological outcomes. We also conducted a literature review to elucidate the causes of this rare incidence, along with diagnostic workup and treatment options. We were able to identify 36 cases, involving 72 shoulders of bilateral posterior fracture-dislocations in 30 case reports and 2 case series. CONCLUSIONS Bilateral posterior fracture-dislocation of the shoulder is uncommon. Treatment strategy depends on the chronicity, involvement of the humeral head, and the patient's age and functional level. The target is to restore shoulder anatomy and maintain a functional range of motion.

Simultaneous acromioclavicular dislocation, proximal humeral fracture, and reverse Hill-Sachs lesion: a case report.

BACKGROUND: In cases with injuries to the shoulder region, the combination of acromioclavicular joint dislocation, reverse Hill-Sachs lesion, and proximal humeral fracture is a very rare condition. CASE PRESENTATION: This study described a 38-year-old male Persian patient with simultaneous acromioclavicular joint dislocation, proximal humeral fracture, and reverse Hill-Sachs lesion due to motor vehicle crash injury who underwent arthroscopic acromioclavicular joint fixation using tight rope technique. In the 7-month follow-up period following the surgical fixation, range of motion was approximately normal. Reduction and hardware were intact, no dislocation or apprehension to dislocation was observed. Patient only had minor shoulder pain at the end of range of motion and a dull pain on the site of incision over the clavicle in deep touch. Our findings showed acceptable arthroscopic outcomes in the management of such complex case. CONCLUSION: Our experience on this case showed acceptable outcomes of the arthroscopic treatment of the acromioclavicular joint dislocation in the management of such a complex case with associated injuries to the shoulder region.

Atypical Shoulder Instability Patterns in Adolescents Following Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is common in the adolescent athlete, and when it is untreated, the recurrence rate is high. Atypical lesions-such as anterior glenoid periosteal sleeve, humeral glenohumeral ligament, and insertional tendon avulsions-may occur within this population, and accurate diagnosis and appropriate lesion management are key to treatment success. PURPOSE: To evaluate the age, skeletal immaturity, bone loss, and uncommon soft tissue lesions as correlates of posttraumatic anterior shoulder instability lesion patterns in an adolescent population. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Consecutive patients ≤18 years of age (160 shoulders) treated within a single institution for traumatic anterior shoulder instability between June 2013 and June 2021 were reviewed. Demographics, injury mechanism, radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging of lesions, the presence of any bone loss, operative findings, and physeal status were recorded. An overall 131 shoulders met the inclusion criteria. Instability lesion type was analyzed categorically by age <15 or ≥15 years; individual age was assessed for correlation with any bone loss present. Atypical lesions-anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion, humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament, subscapularis avulsion-were assessed for correlations with age, open physeal status, and the presence of any bone loss. RESULTS: An overall 131 shoulders (mean, 15.3 years; range, 10.5-18.3) were identified for this study: 55 in patients <15 years old and 76 in patients ≥15 years old. Bony injuries such as Bankart and Hill-Sachs lesions were more common in the ≥15-year-old group (P = .044 and P = .024, respectively). Bony Bankart injuries were found at a rate of 18.2% in the <15-year-old group, as compared with 34.2% in the ≥15-year-old group (P < .05). Anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsions were more common in the <15-year-old group (n = 13 [23.6%] vs n = 8 [10.5%]; P < .044), as were all atypical lesions combined (n = 23 [41.8%] vs n = 13 [17.1%]; P < .0018]. CONCLUSION: In this series of anterior shoulder instability in children and adolescents, instability lesions varied significantly by age. Bone loss was associated with older age at presentation, and atypical lesions were more common in patients <15 years of age. Treatment teams should be aware of less common soft tissue injuries in this young age group and ensure careful review of adequate imaging for proper diagnosis and treatment in these younger patients.

Gene Expression in Glenoid Articular Cartilage Varies Across Acute Instability, Chronic Instability, and Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder instability is a common pathology associated with an elevated risk of osteoarthritis (OA). Little is known about gene expression in the cartilage of the glenohumeral joint after dislocation events, particularly as it relates to the risk of posttraumatic OA. This study tested the hypothesis that gene expression in glenoid cartilage varies among acute instability (<3 dislocations), chronic instability (≥3 dislocations), and OA. METHODS: Articular cartilage was collected from the anteroinferior glenoid of consenting patients undergoing shoulder stabilization surgery (n = 17) or total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 16). Digital quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to assess the relative expression of 57 genes (36 genes from OA risk allele studies, 21 genes from differential expression studies), comparing (1) OA versus instability (acute and chronic combined), (2) acute versus chronic instability, (3) OA versus acute instability, and (4) OA versus chronic instability. RESULTS: The expression of 11 genes from OA risk allele studies and 9 genes from differential expression studies was significantly different between cartilage from patients with instability and those with OA. Pro-inflammatory genes from differential expression studies and genes from OA risk allele studies were more highly expressed in cartilage in the OA group compared with the instability group, which expressed higher levels of extracellular matrix and pro-anabolic genes. The expression of 14 genes from OA risk allele studies and 4 genes from differential expression studies, including pro-inflammatory genes, anti-anabolic genes, and multiple genes from OA risk allele studies, was higher in the acute instability group compared with the chronic instability group. Cartilage in the OA group displayed higher expression of CCL3, CHST11, GPR22, PRKAR2B, and PTGS2 than cartilage in the group with acute or chronic instability. Whereas cartilage in both the acute and chronic instability groups had higher expression of collagen genes, cartilage in the OA group had expression of a subset of genes from OA risk allele studies or from differential expression studies that was lower than in the acute group and higher than in the chronic group. CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid cartilage has an inflammatory and catabolic phenotype in shoulders with OA but an anabolic phenotype in shoulders with instability. Cartilage from shoulders with acute instability displayed greater (cellular) metabolic activity compared with shoulders with chronic instability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This exploratory study identified genes of interest, such as CCL3, CHST11, GPR22, PRKAR2B, and PTGS2, that have elevated expression in osteoarthritic glenoid cartilage. These findings provide new biological insight into the relationship between shoulder instability and OA, which could lead to strategies to predict and potentially modify patients' risk of degenerative arthritis due to shoulder instability.

Minimum 10-Year Clinical Outcomes After Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Isolated Posterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for posterior shoulder instability has been shown to improve patient-reported outcomes and return to sport at short-term and midterm follow-up, but long-term outcomes are unknown. PURPOSE: To determine the objective and subjective clinical outcomes of shoulder function after arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization at a minimum 10-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 53 patients (55 shoulders) with unidirectional recurrent posterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic capsulolabral repair were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 15.4 years. Outcomes such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic shoulder and elbow score, and subjective strength, stability, range of motion, and pain were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Outcomes from the same patient cohort were previously collected at 3.0-year follow-up and were evaluated for longitudinal analysis. Subgroup analyses for sport type (contact vs noncontact), position (thrower vs nonthrower), and revision versus nonrevision were performed. Risk factors for revision surgery based on magnetic resonance imaging findings, patient characteristics, and surgical findings were investigated. RESULTS: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for posterior shoulder instability led to a statistically significant improvement on all outcome measures, with similar values at short-term (3.0-year) and long-term (15.4-year) follow-up. Across the total population, patients with 19 of 55 shoulders (35%) returned to sport at the same preinjury level, and patients with 33 of 55 shoulders (60%) returned to sport at some level. At long-term follow-up, patients with only 22% of shoulders were involved in the primary sport in which the injury was sustained, with patients with 28% of shoulders discontinuing sporting participation because of ongoing shoulder issues. Throwers trended toward lower Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic scores than nonthrowers both preoperatively (36.5 ± 22.8 vs 48.7 ± 22.9, respectively; P = .10) and postoperatively (57.4 ± 27.0 vs 73.5 ± 26.8, respectively; P = .09) but had similar improvements. Contact and noncontact athletes had similar preoperative and postoperative values, with equal improvements after surgery. With failure defined as revision surgery, an ASES score <60, or a stability value >5, 19 of 55 shoulders (35%) met failure criteria at final follow-up. Overall, 7 of 55 shoulders (13%) underwent revision surgery. At long-term follow-up, patients who underwent revision surgery had worse outcomes than those who did not undergo revision (ASES score: 53.1 ± 25.9 vs 81.8 ± 19.4, respectively; P < .001). An acute injury in the postoperative period (P < .001) and a smaller glenoid bone width on magnetic resonance imaging (P = .02) were the only identified risk factors for revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for posterior shoulder instability was a durable treatment option that improved long-term shoulder pain and function and facilitated return to sport in the majority of patients at a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, although a notable proportion of patients met various criteria for failure.

Use of Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Possible Effect on Surgical Management.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss is a critical factor in the management of anterior shoulder instability (ASI). Computed tomography (CT) is often considered the gold standard to evaluate glenoid bone loss, but it is associated with negative factors such as radiation. Thus, interest exists as to when orthopaedic surgeons need a CT scan to guide decision-making when treating ASI. PURPOSE: To determine whether information gained from a shoulder CT scan alters orthopaedic surgeons' management plan for ASI and, secondarily, to determine whether surgeon- and patient-specific factors affect whether a CT scan changes treatment and which clinical factors are most important in surgical decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A questionnaire composed of 24 ASI vignettes was administered to Herodicus Society members, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Neer Circle members, and sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons. Participants chose their recommended surgical treatment from the options of arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Bankart repair, bony reconstruction procedure, or other based on patient history, radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging. Participants were then shown CT images and asked whether their treatment plan changed and, if not, whether the CT scan was not necessary or had reinforced their decision. Generalized linear mixed-effects logistic regression modeling was performed to assess the influence of vignette and respondent characteristics on treatment decisions. RESULTS: A total of 74 orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey; 96% were fellowship trained (sports medicine, 50%; shoulder and elbow surgery, 41%), and 66% practiced in academic settings. CT imaging did not change the selected treatment strategy in 75.6% of responses. In cases when management did not change, surgeons reported that the CT scan reinforced their decision in 53.4% of responses and was not necessary for decision-making in 22.2% of responses. Decision-making was more likely to be changed after CT in male patients and those with off-track lesions. CONCLUSION: Information gained from a CT scan did not alter treatment decision-making in three-quarters of vignettes among surgeons experienced in the management of ASI. The finding that CT scans did alter the treatment plan in nearly a quarter of cases is not insignificant, and it appears that in patients with borderline glenoid track status and few other risk factors for recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization, CT imaging is more likely to change management.

Increased Failure Rates After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Second Dislocation Compared to Primary Dislocation With Comparable Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent dislocation and postsurgical outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability immediately after a first-time traumatic anterior dislocation versus patients who sustained a second dislocation event after initial nonoperative management. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing primary arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability without concomitant procedures and minimum 2-year clinical follow-up. Primary outcome was documentation of a recurrent shoulder dislocation. Secondary clinical outcomes included range of motion, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), and Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS). RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age 21.3 years ± 7.3 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three shoulders underwent surgical stabilization after a single shoulder dislocation, and 14 underwent surgery after 2 dislocations. Average follow-up was 35.9 months. The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the 2-dislocation group compared to single dislocations (42.8% vs 14.2%, P = .03). No significant difference was present in range of motion, VAS, ASES, and SAS scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 1.4 for VAS and 1.8 for SAS scores. The MCID was met or exceeded in the primary dislocation group in 31/38 (81.6%) patients for VAS, 23/31 (74.1%) for ASES, and 24/31 for SES (77.4%) scores. For the second dislocation cohort, MCID was met or exceeded in 7/9 (77.8%) for VAS, 4/7 (57.1%) for ASES, and 5/7 for SES (71.4%) scores. CONCLUSION: Immediate arthroscopic surgical stabilization after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation significantly decreases the risk of recurrent dislocation in comparison to those who undergo surgery after 2 dislocation events, with comparable clinical outcome scores. These findings suggest that patients who return to activities after a primary anterior shoulder dislocation and sustain just 1 additional dislocation event are at increased risk of a failing arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

Editorial Commentary: Shoulder Remplissage Is a Beneficial Addition to Bankart or Glenoid Bone Loss Treatment: Stay on Track and Use Wisely.

In patients with on-track shoulder Hill-Sachs lesions, the addition of remplissage using a double-pulley technique to Bankart repair improves outcomes including residual apprehension and without loss of external rotation. A caveat is that measurement of both the Hill-Sachs lesion and glenoid bone loss may be inconsistent. A second caveat is that determination of the glenoid track can be affected by scapular positioning. Not all "on-track" lesions are alike. In terms of outcome assessment, apprehension has up to 95% specificity for anterior shoulder instability and is a key finding in determining the results of shoulder stabilization. Recurrent instability may not be as sensitive of an outcome measure, because patients will avoid positions of apprehension. Finally, remplissage should be used cautiously in peripheral track lesions. For smaller Hill-Sachs lesions, remplissage can provide extraordinary success, and for larger lesions that are close to engaging, glenoid bone loss must also be treated, especially in a younger, active patient.

Editorial Commentary: Rate of Shoulder Instability, and Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Stabilization, Are Equal Among Men and Women When Similar Sports Are Compared.

Male athletes have been shown to have a higher incidence of shoulder instability and higher rates of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization. However, when similar sports are compared, the incidence of instability effectively equalizes. When similar sports are compared, outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair may also equalize when compared by sex. Next, contact and collision athletes with shoulder instability have more severe intra-articular pathologies that affect their treatment and outcomes. As these sports become more available to women worldwide, we may see more women athletes with more complex shoulder instability-related pathology. Ultimately, the solution may be to ensure equal resources available to optimize surgical outcomes for athletes after surgery, regardless of sex. We must not leave female athletes on the bench.

Classic Versus Congruent-Arc Latarjet Procedures.

Glenohumeral instability remains a frequent pathology, specifically in athletes and active patients. As such, several treatment options have been described. In the setting of significant glenoid bone loss (i.e., >20%), off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, and failed previous soft-tissue-based repairs, glenoid bone-augmentation techniques must be considered. These techniques restore stability by a triple blocking effect of the bony graft, the capsulolabral complex repair, and the dynamic sling effect of the conjoined tendon. The classic Latarjet procedure consists in performing a coracoid osteotomy along with the conjoined tendon attachment followed by transfer and fixation to the anterior glenoid, positioning the lateral surface of the coracoid to be flush with the articular side. Then, a modification of this technique defined as "congruent-arc Latarjet" (CAL) was described. This approach involves rotating the coracoid process 90° along its longitudinal axis using the inferior surface to recreate the native glenoid arc. Biomechanical studies have discussed advantages and disadvantages of these techniques. The CAL allows a greater glenoid surface area, which may be relevant in patients with increased glenoid bone loss. However, the bone contact area is reduced, which increases the technical difficulty of screw positioning with an increased risk of graft fragmentation. The classic Latarjet technique has a greater initial fixation strength between the graft and the glenoid and a greater potential for bone consolidation due to the broader contact bone area. Excellent clinical and sports outcomes with low recurrence rates have been observed in both techniques. Imaging findings have exhibited high bone block healing and no difference in graft placement, but CAL demonstrated a greater incidence of fibrous or nonunion rates and errors in screw fixation. Finally, while similar early complications have been reported, long-term outcomes are still needed in CAL for comparing osteoarthritis progression. These results emphasize that either technique can be considered to manage glenohumeral instability when appropriately indicated.

"Nearly off-track lesions" or a short distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track does not seem to be accurate in predicting recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a military population: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: On-track lesions with a short distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track (nearly off-track) may predispose recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) in the general population. The aim of this study was to determine if a shorter distance between the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion and the medial edge of the glenoid track could accurately predict recurrence after an ABR in a high-demand military population. It was hypothesized that a shorter distance would not accurately predict recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective monocenter case-control study was performed at the Dutch Central Military Hospital. Patients with an on-track Hill-Sachs lesion who underwent a primary ABR between 2014 and 2019 with a minimal follow-up of 2 years and a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment received a questionnaire. The primary outcome was recurrence, defined as a complete dislocation or subluxation. Glenoid bone loss was assessed using a linear-based method on MRI. The distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track was defined as the distance to dislocation (DTD). A receiver operating characteristic curve was created to determine the predictive value of the DTD for recurrence. Logistic regression was used to determine preoperative risk factors that predispose recurrence. Covariates were selected based on univariable analysis and included gender, body mass index, age at surgery and first dislocation, laterality, smoking habits, overhead shoulder activity during work, preoperative dislocations, sports type and level, bony or labral lesions on MRI, and DTD. RESULTS: In total, 80 patients with an average follow-up of 4.8 ± 1.9 years completed the questionnaire and were included in the analyses. Seventeen patients (21%) experienced recurrence at the final follow-up. No difference in DTD was observed among patients who experienced recurrence (9 ± 4 mm) compared with patients who did not (9 ± 5 mm; P = .81). The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated no predictive power of DTD for recurrence (area under the curve = 0.49). Smoking at the time of surgery (odds ratio: 3.9; confidence interval: 1.2-12.7; P = .02) and overhead shoulder movement during work (odds ratio: 9.3; confidence interval: 1.1-78.0; P = .04) were associated with recurrence according to the logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: A shorter DTD demonstrated no accuracy in predicting recurrence in a military population. Smoking at the time of surgery and overhead shoulder activity during work were associated with recurrence; however, these analyses were underpowered to draw valid conclusions.

Prevalence and risk factors for nerve injury following shoulder dislocation.

BACKGROUND: The glenohumeral joint dislocation can be associated with major nerve injury. The reported prevalence and risk factors for major nerve injury are variable and this injury can have a severe and life-long impact on the patient. The objectives of this study were to analyse the prevalence of major nerve injury following shoulder dislocation and examine risk factors. Management and outcomes of nerve injury were explored. METHODS: A 1 year retrospective cohort study of 243 consecutive adults who presented with a shoulder dislocation was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics, timings of investigations, treatment, follow-up, and nerve injury prevalence and management. The primary outcome measure was prevalence of nerve injury. Risk factors for this were analysed using appropriate tests with Stata SE15.1. RESULTS: Of 243 patients with shoulder dislocation, 14 (6%) had neurological deficit. Primary dislocation (p = 0.004) and older age (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with major nerve injury. Sex, time to successful reduction and force of injury were not associated with major nerve injury in this cohort. Patients with nerve injury made functional recovery to varying degrees. Recurrent shoulder dislocation was common accounting for 133/243 (55%) attendances. CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder dislocation requires careful assessment and timely management in the ED. A 6% rate of nerve injury following shoulder dislocation was at the lower border of reported rates (5-55%), and primary dislocation and older age were identified as risk factors for nerve injury. We emphasise the importance of referring patients with suspected major nerve injury to specialist services.

Is preoperative glenoid defect size a reliable indicator of postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair in teenage competitive athletes?

BACKGROUND: Being younger than 20 years of age at the time of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is known to be one of the most important risk factors for postoperative recurrence of instability. When deciding on the appropriate surgical approach, surgeons generally consider only the size of a critical glenoid defect, and most of them do not take into account factors such as the size of bone fragments and possible bone union after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair (ABBR). Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to clarify the risk factors for postoperative recurrence after ABR in teenage competitive athletes by focusing on glenoid rim morphologies and bone union. METHODS: Participants were 115 teenage competitive athletes without a capsular injury who underwent primary ABR for chronic traumatic anterior instability and were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Possible risk factors for postoperative recurrence were investigated by univariate and multivariate analysis. In shoulders with a glenoid defect and bone fragment, the influence of glenoid defect size and bone fragment size on bone union after ABBR was also investigated. RESULTS: Postoperative recurrence was seen in 16 patients (13.9%). Regarding glenoid defect size, recurrence was seen in 1 (3.2%) of 31 shoulders with a glenoid defect smaller than 5% (including those with a normal glenoid), 15 (22.1%) of 68 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 5%-20%, and 0 (0%) of 16 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 20% or larger (P = .009). Regarding bone union, recurrence was seen in 4 (6.9%) of 58 shoulders with complete or partial bone union after ABBR and 8 (40%) of 20 shoulders with nonunion or disappearance of the bone fragment (P = .001). Regarding bone fragment size, recurrence was seen in 12 (20.7%) of 58 shoulders with a small or no bone fragment (<7.5%) and in 3 (8.6%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P = .154). Multivariate analysis identified non-union or disappearance of the bone fragment after ABBR as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Complete or partial bone union was seen in 25 (58.1%) of 43 shoulders with a small bone fragment (<7.5%) and 33 (94.3%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In teenage competitive athletes, bone union after ABBR affects postoperative recurrence after ABR, regardless of the preoperative glenoid defect size, and bone union rate after ABBR is significantly influenced by bone fragment size.