Studies on Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability Show Poor Reporting of Data and Reflect Low Level of Evidence: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. 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 were analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100 and gave each study a score out of 25 based on the Anterior Shoulder Instability (ASI) Methodology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six studies were included in the analysis and encompassed a total of 19,156 patients and 19,317 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. Overall, 81.6% of studies were Level III or IV evidence. The mean CMS score for the studies was 55.3 out of 100, and the mean ASI Methodology score for the studies was 12.1 out of 25. Weaknesses in the studies were identified in sample size, description of preoperative investigations and diagnoses, reporting of mean glenoid bone loss, nonsubjective clinical outcome reporting, and description of associated pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of studies reporting the clinical outcomes of Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability are of low methodological quality and have a low level of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study emphasizes need for greater reporting of many variables such as body mass index, mean glenoid bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes and provides a framework for future studies reporting.

Biomechanical Analysis Reveals Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss Is Best Treated With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization for On-Track Lesions and With Remplissage for Off-Track Lesions.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical effects of augmenting Bankart repair (BR) with either remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with on-track or off-track bipolar bone loss. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the intact, injury, and repair conditions. Injury conditions included 15% glenoid bone loss with an on-track or off-track Hill-Sachs lesion as previously recommended. Repair conditions included isolated BR, BR with remplissage, and BR with DAS (long head of biceps transfer). The glenohumeral stability was assessed by measuring the anterior translation under 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 N load and maximum load without causing instability at mid-range (60°) and end-range (90°) external rotation (ER). Maximum range of motion (ROM) was measured by applying a 2.2-N·m torque in passive ER and internal rotation. RESULTS: Isolated BR failed to restore native glenohumeral stability in both on-track and off-track bipolar bone loss models. Both remplissage and DAS significantly decreased the anterior instability in the bipolar bone loss models, showing better restoration than the isolated BR. In the on-track lesions, DAS successfully restored native glenohumeral stability and mobility, whereas remplissage significantly decreased anterior translation without load (-2.12 ± 1.07 mm at 90° ER, P = .003; -1.98 ± 1.23 mm at 60° ER, P = .015). In the off-track lesions, remplissage restored native glenohumeral stability but led to significant ROM limitation (-8.6° ± 2.3° for internal rotation, P < .001; -13.9° ± 6.2° for ER, P = .003), whereas DAS failed to restore native stability at 90° ER regarding the increased anterior translation under 50 N (4.10 ± 1.53 mm, P < .001) and decreased maximum load (-13.8 ± 9.2 N, P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: At time-zero, both remplissage and DAS significantly reduced residual anterior instability compared with isolated BR in the bipolar bone loss models and restored the native glenohumeral stability under most translational loads. However, remplissage could decrease the anterior translation without load for on-track lesions and may restrict ROM for off-track lesions, whereas DAS failed to restore native stability under high translational loads for off-track lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DAS could be recommended to treat on-track bipolar bone loss with less biomechanical adverse effects, whereas remplissage might be the preferred procedure to address off-track bipolar bone loss for better stability.

Editorial Commentary: For Patients With Shoulder Instability, On-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion Plus Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss May Be the Best Indication for Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon.

As the definition of shoulder glenoid critical bone loss has evolved and decreased from 25% to 17% to 13.5%, indications for bone block procedures for shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss have expanded. While the bone block procedure is an effective treatment for almost all cases of anterior shoulder instability, regardless of the amount of bone loss, many surgeons prefer to perform a bone block procedure only in cases of critical bone loss due to risk of complications. Thus, for cases of minimal (subcritical) bone loss, Remplissage has been recommended to enhance Bankart repair. As an alternative, dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of the biceps tendon has been recommended as a surgical option in patients with shoulder instability and subcritical bone loss. How do we decide? A biomechanical study shows DAS is an effective method for on-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical bone loss, and Remplissage is more effective for off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Clinical studies are required to complement biomechanical findings.

Editorial Commentary: Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Combining Arthroscopic Bankart and Inferior Capsular Shift Avoids Open Surgery in Athletes Without Critical Glenoid Bone Loss.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations can cause a myriad of injuries, each with their own unique set of challenges with respect to surgical management. The debate of whether open or arthroscopic management is the superior approach is one that predates most currently practicing orthopaedic surgeons yet remains one of the most actively researched areas of orthopaedics. Current trends favor arthroscopic management for anterior instability secondary to a Bankart lesion in patients without other risk factors for instability, such as critical glenoid bone loss. However, excellent results are not guaranteed following arthroscopic Bankart repair, particularly in athletes, due to high rates of recurrence. While the technique of inferior to superior capsular shift is not new, transitioning a historically open technique to the arthroscopic world may represent another tool in the glenohumeral instability management toolbox. While perspectives are evolving, more evidence supporting arthroscopic techniques like the capsular shift are needed to better identify appropriate patient populations.

Humeral Head Reconstruction of Reverse Hill-Sachs Lesions.

Compared with anterior instability, posterior shoulder dislocations are a rare entity and are often missed at presentation. A concomitant anteromedial impression fracture of the humeral head, or a reverse Hill-Sachs lesion, is commonly present with these dislocations and is more pronounced with a longer timeline to reduction. Treatment of these defects ranges from nonsurgical treatment to soft-tissue procedures, bony reconstruction, and arthroplasty. Management may be dictated by various factors, such as patient demands, defect size and location, concomitant injuries, and underlying etiology. Small reverse Hill-Sachs defects without engagement can generally be treated nonsurgically or with benign neglect, whereas larger defects (>20%) often require surgery. The most reported surgical techniques are the (arthroscopic) McLaughlin and modified McLaughlin procedure, disimpaction and bone grafting, or reconstruction of the defect with autograft or with fresh (or fresh-frozen) osteochondral allograft. Finally, arthroplasty is generally required for large defects, where more than 45% to 50% of the articular cartilage is involved. Overall, reported outcomes generally reflect patient satisfaction for most patients, with a low incidence of secondary instability or posttraumatic arthritis, although better results are achieved when recognizing and treating these injuries in the more acute setting.

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise. METHODS: This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability. RESULTS: The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%. CONCLUSION: ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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

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

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.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomes and rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. METHODS: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using three databases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASE and PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studies and 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported among studies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.) or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Longer peripheral-track lesions are associated with instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept has enabled the categorization of Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) into on-track lesions and off-track lesions. Furthermore, among the on-track lesions, further categorization has been established based on the distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track, into peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions. Recent studies on peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions within the glenoid track have shown inconsistencies in failure rates, which deserves further investigation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison of patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2015 and 2020 was performed. 102 patients with peripheral-track HSLs were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the results of the postoperative apprehension test: the apprehension positive group (n = 30), and the apprehension negative group (n = 72). Using preoperative computed tomography (CT) and an image reconstruction program, 3-dimensional (3D) images were segmented to calculate the length, width, depth, and distance of the HSLs. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of recurrence, for which odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. RESULTS: A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the length of the peripheral-track HSLs was a significant independent predictor of failure in this study. (OR 1.380; 95% CI 1.170-1.627; P < .001). The receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) demonstrated a predictive power (area under the curve = 0.841) and a threshold value of 14.2 mm. CONCLUSION: Length was the only risk factor for the recurrent instability of peripheral-track HSLs after ABR. In the context of surgical decision-making, utilizing the glenoid track concept, medical practitioners may need to evaluate instability by considering the length as a continuous factor, while differentiating between peripheral-track and central-track classifications.

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

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

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.

Biomechanical comparison of open Bankart repair vs. conjoint tendon transfer in a 10% anterior glenoid bone loss shoulder instability model.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of shoulder instability in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss poses a difficult problem for surgeons as new evidence supports a higher failure rate when a standard arthroscopic Bankart repair is used. The purpose of this study was to compare a conjoint tendon transfer (soft-tissue Bristow) to an open Bankart repair in a cadaveric instability model of 10% glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested using a custom testing system that allows for a 6-degree-of-freedom positioning of the glenohumeral joint. The rotator cuff muscles were loaded to simulate physiologic muscle conditions. Four conditions were tested: (1) intact, (2) Bankart lesion with 10% bone loss, (3) conjoint tendon transfer, and (4) open Bankart repair. Range of motion, glenohumeral kinematics, and anterior-inferior translation at 60° of external rotation with 20 N, 30 N, and 40 N were measured in the scapular and coronal planes. Glenohumeral joint translational stiffness was calculated as the linear fit of the translational force-displacement curve. Force to anterior-inferior dislocation was also measured in the coronal plane. Repeated measures analysis of variance with a Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A Bankart lesion with 10% bone loss increased the range of motion in both the scapular (P = .001) and coronal planes (P = .001). The conjoint tendon transfer had a minimal effect on the range of motion (vs. intact P = .019, .002), but the Bankart repair decreased the range of motion to intact (P = .9, .4). There was a significant decrease in glenohumeral joint translational stiffness for the Bankart lesion compared with intact in the coronal plane (P = .021). The conjoint tendon transfer significantly increased stiffness in the scapular plane (P = .034), and the Bankart repair increased stiffness in the coronal plane (P = .037) compared with the Bankart lesion. The conjoint tendon transfer shifted the humeral head posteriorly at 60° and 90° of external rotation in the scapular plane. The Bankart repair shifted the head posteriorly in maximum external rotation in the coronal plane. There was no significant difference in force to dislocation between the Bankart repair (75.8 ± 6.6 N) and the conjoint tendon transfer (66.5 ± 4.4 N) (P = .151). CONCLUSION: In the setting of subcritical bone loss, both the open Bankart repair and conjoint tendon transfer are biomechanically viable options for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability; further studies are needed to extrapolate these data to the clinical setting.

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.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior working portal technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior working portal and determine whether they are comparable to the standard two-portal technique. METHODS: A search following PRISMA guidelines was performed in July 2024 in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies evaluating outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior portal technique were included. A meta-analysis comparing outcomes was performed using a random-effects model. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Seven studies in patients undergoing Bankart repair with a single anterior portal were included (311 patients, 84.6% male, mean age 27.8 years, mean follow-up 37.4 months). Five of seven studies compared outcomes of a single anterior portal versus the standard two-portal technique. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the single anterior portal group (P < 0.00001). The postoperative Oxford Instability Score (P = 0.84), Rowe score (P = 0.26), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = 0.73), Constant-Murley score (P = 0.92), and Visual Analog Scale Pain score (P = 0.07) were similar between both groups. The postoperative degree of shoulder abduction (P = 0.84) and external rotation (P = 0.64) were similar between both groups. The risk of redislocation (P = 0.98) was similar between both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair with a single anterior portal had significantly lower operative times and comparable PROs, ROM, and risk of redislocation relative to patients undergoing repair with a standard two-portal technique.

Similar outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-Track Hill Sachs lesion versus off-track Hill Sachs lesion managed with open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift.

INTRODUCTION: Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift has not yet been tested under the concept of glenoid track as a predictor of failure. The aim of this study was to compare the subjective and objective outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill Sachs lesions versus those with off-track Hill Sachs lesions, all treated with open Bankart repair. METHODS: Two study groups were created: 50 patients had on-track Hill Sachs lesions, while 38 had off-track lesions. The subcritical glenoid bone loss was ≤ 10%. A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was established. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation of each group and between them was performed. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale were used to assess subjective outcomes. Recurrence rate, range of motion and return to sport were evaluated as objective outcomes. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores between preoperative and postoperative values in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.36 and 0.71). Three dislocations (6%) in the on-track group and 3 (7.8%) in the off-track group were recorded, showing no differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.83). There were no differences in ROM between pre- and post-operatively in each group or when comparing the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences between the outcomes of the two groups. According to the surgeon's preference, we recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with SGBL ≤ 10% independently of the type of Hill Sachs lesion.

Impact of size and fragmentation of the anteroinferior glenoid rim on clinical and functional outcomes of non-operatively treated Bony Bankart lesions in middle-aged population.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment approach for Bony Bankart remains a subject of considerable debate among shoulder surgeons. Existing literature highlights low recurrence rates and high patient satisfaction with nonoperative treatment, particularly in the middle-aged population. This study aimed to evaluate the recurrence rate of dislocation, as well as the clinical and functional outcomes in middle-aged individuals treated nonoperatively following an acute bony Bankart fracture. Additionally, the impact of glenoid rim size and fragmentation on the treatment outcome was investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients aged over 50 with nonoperatively treated bony Bankart fractures, ensuring a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The study population was categorized based on fragment size (small and medium) according to Kim classification and glenoid rim fragmentation (type 1b and 1c) according to Scheibel classification. Data including UCLA score, Rowe score, recurrence rate, clinical instability, and range of motion (ROM) were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: The average UCLA and Rowe scores were 32.15 ± 2.85 and 93.85 ± 2.19, respectively, with no instances of dislocation recurrence. The affected shoulder exhibited no significant reductions in ROM compared to the contralateral side, except for a loss of external rotation (ER) (13.08° ± 7.51; p = 0.005). No differences were observed based on fragment size, although patients with multifragmented glenoid rims showed a greater loss of ER compared to those with a solitary fragment, albeit not reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Nonoperative treatment appears to be a viable and effective option for middle-aged individuals with bony Bankart fractures, resulting in favorable functional outcomes and a low risk of recurrence. Additionally, a notable loss of external rotation was observed in fractures with glenoid rim fragmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Comparison between arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP lesion repair in limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion. A prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, recurrence rate, range of motion (ROM) and return to sports activities between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) versus arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair (ABR/S) in limited contact-athletes with a type V SLAP lesion in the scenario of recurrent anterior shoulder instability (RASI). Our hypothesis was that there is no difference between the two treatments. METHODS: Two groups of 45 limited-contact athletes with type V SLAP lesion were created. Group 1 underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair, while group 2 had an arthroscopic Bankart/SLAP repair. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. The WOSI and ASES scores were used to assess primary functional outcomes. Recurrence rate, ROM and return to sport were also evaluated. RESULTS: Significant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores pre- and post-operatively in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.78 and 0.43). We reported 4 recurrences (8.8 %) in group 1 and 5 (11.1 %) in group 2, with no difference between them (P = 0.62). There were no significant differences between the range of motion of each of the groups as well as between them. More than 90% of the athletes in both groups returned to their previous sporting activities. CONCLUSIONS: Limited-contact athletes with RASI who have a type V SLAP lesion as their primary diagnosis can be treated using either ABR or ABR/S with equal efficacy. Both treatment alternatives preserve athlete's function, stability, ROM and return to sport.

An assessment of SLAP type 5 lesions using proton density oblique sagittal imaging in magnetic resonance arthrography.

BACKGROUND: Bankart lesions accompany superior labrum anteroposterior (SLAP) lesions; these are called SLAP type 5. PURPOSE: To compare SLAP type 5 lesions using routine magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and thin-slice oblique sagittal proton density (PDW) sequences and correlation operation results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 181 patients were admitted with shoulder instability. The study was completed with 44 patients. The presence or absence of isolated Bankart and SLAP type 5 lesions in routine MRA and PDW oblique sagittal images were evaluated separately. Absence of rupture scored 0 points, suspected ruptures scored 1 point, and apparent ruptures scored 2 points. The two scores were compared with the shoulder arthroscopy findings. RESULTS: According to the findings in the shoulder arthroscopy, 40 patients had Bankart lesions and 17 patients had accompanying SLAP type 5 lesions. To detect a Bankart lesion, there was no significant difference between routine MRA sequences and PDW oblique sagittal images (P = 0.061). Routine MRA sensitivity was 95%, specificity 25%, positive predictive value (PPV) 92%, negative predictive value (NPV) 33%, while for PDW oblique sagittal images, sensitivity was 75%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 28.5%. In 8/17 type 5 SLAP lesions, routine MRA detected sensitivity 47%, specificity 92.6%, PPV 80%, and NPV 73.5%; in 14/17 SLAP type 5 lesions, PDW oblique sagittal images detected sensitivity 82%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 90% (P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The PDW oblique sagittal images may play a significant role in assessing the anterior and superior extent of the tears.

A novel modified McLaughlin surgery for treating locked chronic posterior shoulder dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder dislocation is an uncommon orthopaedics injury and is frequently missed or misdiagnosed, accounting for 2%-4% of all shoulder dislocations, and is associated with the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion. Once posterior shoulder dislocation develops into a chronic disease, it will bring a lot of trouble to the treatment, especially in repairing the humeral defects. Surgical strategies are also developing and innovating to deal with this injury, including transfer of subscapularis tendon or lesser tubercle, humeral rotational osteotomy, autogenous bone graft or allograft. Shoulder replacement seems to be the ultimate and only option when the injury becomes irreparable, although some studies have shown unsatisfactory follow-up results. Considering no gold-standard treatment for locked posterior shoulder dislocation, we described a novel modified McLaughlin procedure for locked chronic posterior shoulder dislocation and evaluated the functional outcomes. METHODS: This study included five locked chronic posterior shoulder dislocation patients with an associated reverse Hill-Sachs lesion, in which the compression surface covered 30-40% of the humeral head. The mean period from injury to receiving surgery was 11.6 weeks (6-24 weeks). All five patients underwent the modified McLaughlin procedure, mainly divided into three steps, including open reduction, transfer of the partial lesser tuberosity and artificial bone to repair the reverse Hill-Sachs defects. The kernel technique was to fix the transferred tuberosity with two lag screws and strengthen it with two Ethibond sutures. The Constant-Murley score (CMS), the range of shoulder motion and the complications were recorded to assess and compare the functional situation of the shoulder postoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: After an average of 19.8 months (12-30) of follow-up, the mean CMS improved to 85.8 ± 4.9 (79-91) compared with 46.0 ± 4.5 (40-52) preoperatively, which showed a significant difference (p = 0.001). In the final follow-up, all five patients showed no symptoms of shoulder instability, and there was no pain or limited activity in daily life, thus all patients were satisfied with the results. CONCLUSION: Repairing the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion by transferring the partial lesser tuberosity combined with artificial bone fixed by lag screws and sutures can ensure shoulder stability and provide pain relief and good function in patients with locked chronic posterior shoulder dislocation associated with the humeral head defect.