Statistical shape models that predict native glenoid width based on glenoid height are inaccurate in their current form: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The extent of measurement errors of statistical shape models that predict native glenoid width based on glenoid height to subsequently determine the amount of anterior glenoid bone loss is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to (1) create a statistical shape model based on glenoid height and width measured on 3D-CT and determine the accuracy through measurement errors and (2) determine measurement errors of existing 3D-CT statistical shape models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients that underwent CT-imaging before undergoing primary surgical treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation between 2007 and 2022 at the Tohoku University Hospital and affiliated hospitals. Patients were included when instability was unilateral and CT scans of both the injured and contralateral uninjured shoulder were available. 3D segmentations were created and glenoid height and width of the injured and contralateral uninjured side (gold standard) were measured. Accuracy was determined through measurement errors, which were defined as a percentage error deviation from native glenoid width (contralateral uninjured glenoid), calculated as measurement error = ((estimated glenoid width with a statistical shape model - native glenoid width) / native glenoid width) x 100%. A linear regression analysis was performed to create a statistical shape model based on glenoid height according to the formula native glenoid width = a * glenoid height + b. RESULTS: The diagnosis and procedure codes identified 105 patients, of which 69 (66%) were eligible for inclusion. Glenoid height demonstrated a very strong correlation (r= 0.80) with native glenoid width. The linear regression formula based on this cohort was native glenoid width = 0.75 * glenoid height - 0.61 and demonstrated an absolute average measurement error of 5 ± 4%. The formulas by Giles et al, Chen et al and Rayes et al demonstrated absolute average measurement errors of 10 ± 7%, 6 ± 5% and 9 ± 6%, respectively CONCLUSION: Statistical shape models that estimate native glenoid width based on glenoid height demonstrate unacceptable measurement errors, despite a high correlation. Therefore, great caution is advised when using these models to determine glenoid bone loss percentage. To minimize errors caused by morphological differences, preference goes to methods that use the contralateral side as reference.

Minimal but potentially clinically relevant anteroinferior position of the humeral head following traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations: A 3D-CT analysis.

In unstable shoulders, excessive anteroinferior position of the humeral head relative to the glenoid can lead to a dislocation. Measuring humeral head position could therefore be valuable in quantifying shoulder laxity. The aim of this study was to measure (1) position of the humeral head relative to the glenoid and (2) joint space thickness during passive motion in unstable shoulders caused by traumatic anterior dislocations and in contralateral uninjured shoulders. A prospective cross-sectional CT-study was performed in patients with unilateral anterior shoulder instability. Patients underwent CT scanning of both injured and uninjured side in supine position (0° abduction and 0° external rotation) and in 60°, 90°, and 120° of abduction with 90° of external rotation without an external load. Subsequently, 3D virtual models were created of the humerus and the scapula to create a glenoid coordinate system to identify poster-anterior, inferior-superior, and lateral-medial position of the humeral head relative to the glenoid. Joint space thickness was defined as the average distance between the subchondral bone surfaces of the humeral head and glenoid. Fifteen consecutive patients were included. In supine position, the humeral head was positioned more anteriorly (p = 0.004), inferiorly (p = 0.019), and laterally (p = 0.021) in the injured compared to the uninjured shoulder. No differences were observed in any of the other positions. A joint-space thickness map, showing the bone-to-bone distances, identified the Hill-Sachs lesion footprint on the glenoid surface in external rotation and abduction, but no differences on average joint space thickness were observed in any position.

Treatment Outcomes of Simple Elbow Dislocations: A Systematic Review of 1,081 Cases.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of simple elbow dislocations (SEDs) has become more functional last decade with a tendency to shorter immobilization of the elbow, whereas simultaneously, surgical stabilization has been promoted by some authors. The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and analyze the outcomes and complications of different treatment options for acute and persistent SEDs, including operative and nonoperative treatments with varying immobilization periods. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the online medical databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. Articles presenting patients with a SED were eligible for inclusion. When an SED persists for >3 weeks, it is categorized as persistent. Various outcome measures were assessed, including the range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates. To get insight into the severity of complications, all complications were categorized as minor or major. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies. The risk of bias in the randomized studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles were included with 1,081 dislocated elbows (1,078 patients). A fair quality of evidence was seen for the nonrandomized studies and a low risk of bias for the randomized study. Nonoperative treatment was administered to 710 elbows, with 244 elbows treated with early mobilization, 239 with 1- to 3-week immobilization, and 163 with ≥3-week immobilization. These groups showed a ROM flexion-extension arc (ROM F/E) of 137, 129, and 131°, respectively. Surgical treatment as open reduction and ligament repair or reconstruction was performed in 228 elbows and showed a ROM F/E of 128°. All persistent SEDs were treated surgically and showed a ROM F/E of 90°. CONCLUSION: The early mobilization treatment showed the most consistent satisfactory outcomes in the literature compared with the other treatment options. Nevertheless, there remains ambiguity regarding which patients would benefit more from surgery than nonoperative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ten technical aspects of baseplate fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for patients without glenoid bone loss: a systematic review.

The aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence on the following 10 technical aspects of glenoid baseplate fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA): screw insertion angles; screw orientation; screw quantity; screw length; screw type; baseplate tilt; baseplate position; baseplate version and rotation; baseplate design; and anatomical safe zones. Five literature libraries were searched for eligible clinical, cadaver, biomechanical, virtual planning, and finite element analysis studies. Studies including patients >16 years old in which at least one of the ten abovementioned technical aspects was assessed were suitable for analysis. We excluded studies of patients with: glenoid bone loss; bony increased offset-reversed shoulder arthroplasty; rTSA with bone grafts; and augmented baseplates. Quality assessment was performed for each included study. Sixty-two studies were included, of which 41 were experimental studies (13 cadaver, 10 virtual planning, 11 biomechanical, and 7 finite element studies) and 21 were clinical studies (12 retrospective cohorts and 9 case-control studies). Overall, the quality of included studies was moderate or high. The majority of studies agreed upon the use of a divergent screw fixation pattern, fixation with four screws (to reduce micromotions), and inferior positioning in neutral or anteversion. A general consensus was not reached on the other technical aspects. Most surgical aspects of baseplate fixation can be decided without affecting fixation strength. There is not a single strategy that provides the best outcome. Therefore, guidelines should cover multiple surgical options that can achieve adequate baseplate fixation.

Elbow joint loads during simulated activities of daily living: implications for formulating recommendations after total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Overloading of the elbow joint prosthesis following total elbow arthroplasty can lead to implant failure. Joint moments during daily activities are not well contextualized for a prosthesis's failure limits, and the effect of the current postoperative instruction on elbow joint loading is unclear. This study investigates the difference in elbow joint moments between simulated daily tasks and between flexion-extension, pronation-supination, and varus-valgus movement directions. Additionally, the effect of the current postoperative instruction on elbow joint load is examined. METHODS: Nine healthy participants (age 45.8 ± 17 years, 3 males) performed 8 tasks; driving a car, opening a door, rising from a chair, lifting, sliding, combing hair, drinking, emptying cup, without and with the instruction "not lifting more than 1 kg." Upper limb kinematics and hand contact forces were measured. Elbow joint angles and net moments were analyzed using inverse dynamic analysis, where the net moments are estimated from movement data and external forces. RESULTS: Peak elbow joint moments differed significantly between tasks (P < .01) and movement directions (P < .01). The most and least demanding tasks were, rising from a chair (13.4 Nm extension, 5.0 Nm supination, and 15.2 Nm valgus) and sliding (4.3 Nm flexion, 1.7 Nm supination, and 2.6 Nm varus). Net moments were significantly reduced after instruction only in the chair task (P < .01). CONCLUSION: This study analyzed elbow joint moments in different directions during daily tasks. The outcomes question whether postoperative instruction can lead to decreasing elbow loads. Future research might focus on reducing elbow loads in the flexion-extension and varus-valgus directions.

High variability in what is considered important to report following instability surgery: a Delphi study among Dutch shoulder specialists.

Background: Standardized reporting leads to high-quality data and can reduce administration time. The aim of this study was to (1) get an insight into the variability of what is considered important to report in the surgical report following shoulder instability surgery and (2) determine which elements should be included in the surgical report following shoulder instability surgery according to Dutch surgeons using a Delphi method. Methods: Dutch orthopedic shoulder surgeons were included in a panel for a Delphi study consisting of 3 rounds. Importance of the elements was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. High variability was defined as an element that received at least 1 score between 1 and 3 and 1 score between 7 and 9 in round 3. Consensus was defined as ≥80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or more. Results: Seventeen shoulder specialists completed all 3 rounds and identified a total of 82 elements for the arthroscopic Bankart repair and 60 for the open Latarjet. High variability was observed in 57 (70%) and 52 (87%) of the elements, respectively. After round 3, the panel reached consensus on 27 and 11 elements that should be mentioned in the surgical report following arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet. Conclusion: There is high variability in what shoulder specialists regard essential to report. Consensus was reached on 27 and 11 elements to be reported following arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet, respectively. Future studies on an international scale can further improve data collection and communication between specialists.

Coronoid fractures and traumatic elbow instability.

The coronoid process is key to concentric elbow alignment. Malalignment can contribute to post-traumatic osteoarthritis. The aim of treatment is to keep the joint aligned while the collateral ligaments and fractures heal. The injury pattern is apparent in the shape and size of the coronoid fracture fragments: (1) coronoid tip fractures associated with terrible triad (TT) injuries; (2) anteromedial facet fractures with posteromedial varus rotational type injuries; and (3) large coronoid base fractures with anterior (trans-) or posterior olecranon fracture dislocations. Each injury pattern is associated with specific ligamentous injuries and fracture characteristics useful in planning treatment. The tip fractures associated with TT injuries are repaired with suture fixation or screw fixation in addition to repair or replacement of the radial head fracture and reattachment of the lateral collateral ligament origin. Anteromedial facet fractures are usually repaired with a medial buttress plate. If the elbow is concentrically located on computed tomography and the patient can avoid varus stress for a month, TT and anteromedial facet injuries can be treated nonoperatively. Base fractures are associated with olecranon fractures and can usually be fixed with screws through the posterior plate or with an additional medial plate. If the surgery makes elbow subluxation or dislocation unlikely, and the fracture fixation is secure, elbow motion and stretching can commence within a week when the patient is comfortable.

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research: a first step in developing a core outcome set.

Background: The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research. Methods: Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher. Results: In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%). Conclusion: Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.

Developing a machine learning algorithm to predict the probability of aseptic loosening of the glenoid component after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: protocol for a retrospective, multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite technological advancements in recent years, glenoid component loosening remains a common complication after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) and is one of the main causes of revision surgery. Increasing emphasis is placed on the prevention of glenoid component failure. Previous studies have successfully predicted range of motion, patient-reported outcomes and short-term complications after ATSA using machine learning methods, but an accurate predictive model for (glenoid component) revision is currently lacking. This study aims to use a large international database to accurately predict aseptic loosening of the glenoid component after ATSA using machine learning algorithms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: For this multicentre, retrospective study, individual patient data will be compiled from previously published studies reporting revision of ATSA. A systematic literature search will be performed in Medline (PubMed) identifying all studies reporting outcomes of ATSA. Authors will be contacted and invited to participate in the Machine Learning Consortium by sharing their anonymised databases. All databases reporting revisions after ATSA will be included, and individual patients with a follow-up less than 2 years or a fracture as the indication for ATSA will be excluded. First, features (predictive variables) will be identified using a random forest feature selection. The resulting features from the compiled database will be used to train various machine learning algorithms (stochastic gradient boosting, random forest, support vector machine, neural network and elastic-net penalised logistic regression). The developed and validated algorithms will be evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic), calibration, the Brier score and the decision curve analysis. The best-performing algorithm will be used to create an open-access online prediction tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data will be collected adhering to the WHO regulation on data sharing. An Institutional Review Board review is not applicable. The study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Comparisons of Routine Initial Operative Fracture Treatment and Later Reconstructive Treatment are not Interesting.

Studies that compare routine immediate operative treatment of fractures with selective later reconstructive surgery for malunion or nonunion may be misleading because it discounts the people who did well with nonoperative treatment. We identified 20 studies comparing routine operative fracture treatment and later reconstruction in the hip, clavicle, proximal humerus, elbow, and distal radius. Fifteen of 20 studies favored immediate operative treatment on the basis of lower reoperation rates, fewer complications, better patient reported outcome scores, and higher satisfaction. Five studies were neutral, and none favored delayed reconstruction for malunion or nonunion. These findings emphasize the potential benefits of routine early surgery and raise questions about the validity of studies comparing different timings of fracture treatment.

Changes in Scapular Function, Shoulder Strength, and Range of Motion Occur After Latarjet Procedure.

Purpose: To evaluate the current literature on the effects of anatomic changes caused by the Latarjet procedure and to identify areas for future research. Methods: English-language studies that addressed the consequences of anatomic alterations after the open Latarjet procedure were included. Articles written in languages other than English, reviews, and case reports were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 authors. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were screened by the same authors. The following data were extracted from the included studies: authors, year of publication, journal, country of origin, aims or purpose, study population and sample size, methods, procedure, intervention type, and key findings that relate to the scoping review questions. Results: Twenty-two studies were included for analysis, yielding the following findings: First, the Latarjet procedure may change the position of the scapula owing to pectoralis minor tenotomy and/or transfer of the conjoint tendon. Second, dissection of the coracoacromial ligament may result in increased superior translation of the humeral head. The impact of this increased translation on patients' function remains unclear. Third, the subscapularis split shows, overall, better internal rotation strength compared with subscapularis tenotomy. Fourth, passive external rotation may be limited after capsular repair. Fifth, despite the movement of the conjoint tendon, elbow function seems unchanged. Finally, the musculocutaneous nerve is lengthened with a changed penetration angle into the coracobrachialis muscle, but the clinical impact seems limited. Conclusions: The Latarjet procedure leads to anatomic and biomechanical changes in the shoulder. Areas of future research may include better documentation of scapular movement (bilateral, as well as preoperative and postoperative) and elbow function, the effect of (degenerative) rotator cuff ruptures after the Latarjet procedure on shoulder function, and the impact of capsular closure and its contribution to the development of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Clinical Relevance: This comprehensive overview of anatomic changes after the Latarjet procedure, with its effects on shoulder and elbow function, showed gaps in the current literature. Orthopaedic shoulder surgeons and physical therapists could use our findings when providing patient information and performing future clinical research.

Biomodulating healing after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: the protocol of a randomised proof of concept trial (BIOHACK).

PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: Over the last decades, there has been increasing interest in biological stimulation or bioaugmentation after rotator cuff repair. So far, there is no consensus on the appropriate composition of biologicals or which patients would benefit most, and moreover, these biologicals are often expensive. However, there are other, non-pharmacological strategies that are also believed to achieve biological stimulation. This randomised controlled trial evaluates the possible cumulative effect of pragmatic application of cryobiomodulation, photobiomodulation and electrobiomodulation-collectively called biomodulation-on the bone-to-tendon healing process after rotator cuff repair. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled proof of concept study, 146 patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of a full thickness posterosuperior or anterosuperior rotator cuff tear will be 1:1 randomly assigned to either a control group or to the additional biomodulation protocol group. The adjuvant biomodulation protocol consists of seven self-applicable therapies and will be administered during the first 6 weeks after surgery. Primary outcome will be healing of the rotator cuff as evaluated by the Sugaya classification on MRI at 1-year postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been accepted by the National Ethical Review Board CPP Sud-Est IV in France and has been registered at Clinicaltrials.gov. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04618484.

Surgical Intervention Following a First Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Worthy of Consideration.

Up to 60% of patients experience recurrence after a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD), which is often defined as having experienced either dislocation or subluxation. Thus surgical intervention after FTASD is worthy of consideration and is guided by the number of patients who need to receive surgical intervention to prevent 1 redislocation (i.e., number needed to treat), (subjective) health benefit, complication risk, and costs. Operative intervention through arthroscopic stabilization can be successful in reducing recurrence risk in FTASD, as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, there is a large "gray area" for the indication of arthroscopic stabilization, and it is therefore heavily debated which patients should receive operative treatment. Previous trials showed widely varying redislocation rates in both the intervention and control group, meta-analysis shows 2% to 19% after operative and 20% to 75% after nonoperative treatment, and redislocation rates may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. The literature is quite heterogeneous, and a major confounder is time to follow-up. Furthermore, there is insufficient standardization of reporting of outcomes and no consensus on definition of risk factors. As a result, surgery is a reasonable intervention for FTASD patients, but in which patients it best prevents redislocation requires additional refinement.

The Modified Tampa-Scale of Kinesiophobia for Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Purpose: To assess content validity and to modify the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) to make it suitable for application in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A four-round Delphi method was performed to establish expert consensus on developing the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia for patients with anterior shoulder instability (TSK-SI) using an expert group of Dutch shoulder-specialized orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists. During round 1, experts were asked to score the 17 items of the original TSK on relevance and construction using the COSMIN guidelines. With this feedback, questions were reviewed and modified. During round 2, experts were asked to score the modified items. This process was repeated until consensus was established. Then, patients were asked to participate in a moderator-guided, three-step-test interview using a Web-based platform to assess the modified scale. Sessions were recorded and evaluated by the working group. The modified scale was finally adjusted on the basis of the input of these patients. Results: Thirty Dutch shoulder experts were included, of which 25 completed all 4 rounds, after which consensus was established. One question was added to the modified scale based on feedback in round 1, establishing the 18-item TSK-SI. Sixteen patients with shoulder instability were included, which all completed the three-step test interview. Following this, question 4 (changed to present tense) and question 7 (hypothetical component added) were adjusted, resulting in the final TSK-SI. Conclusions: This consensus modification of the TSK to TSK-SI can support the content validity of the instrument to assess kinesiophobia in patients with anterior shoulder instability. These modifications may improve the responsiveness and validity of the TSK-SI, as it does not match all the items of the original TSK. Level of evidence: Level V, consensus statement.

Anterosuperior versus deltopectoral approach for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Aims: The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods: All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results: In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion: The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening.

Why do patients with anterior shoulder instability not return to sport after surgery? A systematic review of 63 studies comprising 3545 patients.

Purpose: To review athletes' reasons not to return to sport (RTS) after surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability, comparing capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. The hypothesis is that the most common reason for patients unable to RTS is not due to physical inability of the shoulder. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, SPORTDiscus/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics were searched in collaboration with an information specialist up to August 11, 2022. Observational and interventional studies reporting reasons for no RTS following surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability were included. Quality assessment of studies was conducted using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment. Forest plots were generated to show an overview of the proportion shoulder function independent reasons for each study. Results: Sixty-three studies were included reporting on 3545 athletes, of which 2588 (73%) underwent capsulolabral repair versus 957 (27%) who underwent surgical treatment with bony reconstruction procedures. A total of 650 athletes (18%) were unable to RTS. The reason not to RTS was most frequently shoulder function independent (70%) compared to shoulder function dependent (30%) following both capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. Most cited reasons for no RTS after capsulolabral repair were fear of reinjury (17%), personal reasons or change of priorities (11%) and retirement/discharge of military service or sports team (10%). Of these reasons, 106 (22%) were not specified other than being shoulder function dependent or shoulder function independent. Most cited reasons for no RTS after bony reconstruction procedures were fear of reinjury (12%), shoulder pain (10%), and retirement/discharge of military service or sports team (9%). Of these reasons, 74 (44%) were not specified other than being shoulder function dependent or shoulder function independent. Forest plots showed a variation from 0% to 100% shoulder independent reasons for both capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. Conclusion: The majority of athletes who did not RTS following surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability did so due to shoulder function independent reasons, such as fear of reinjury. However, there was a high variety between studies and many reasons were unspecified, warranting unified definitions for reasons of patients that do not RTS.