Understanding the Remplissage: History, Biomechanics, Outcomes, and Current Indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Arthroscopic remplissage has continued to gain popularity as an adjunct to Bankart repair for patients with anterior shoulder instability. Although the original remplissage technique was described over 15 years ago, our understanding of when and how to use this procedure continues to evolve. This article provides a review of how remplissage affects shoulder biomechanics, compares clinical outcomes between remplissage and other procedures for shoulder instability, and discusses current indications for remplissage. RECENT FINDINGS: Current research focuses on the use of remplissage across a wide range of glenoid bone loss. Remplissage appears effective at preventing recurrent instability in patients with glenoid bone loss up to 15% of the glenoid width. However, once glenoid bone exceeds 15%, outcomes tend to favor bony reconstruction procedures such as Latarjet. Results of biomechanical studies examining shoulder range of motion (ROM) after remplissage are mixed, though clinical studies tend to report no significant limitations in ROM when remplissage is added to a Bankart repair. Adding a remplissage to conventional Bankart repair may improve clinical outcomes and lower rates of recurrent instability without significantly altering shoulder ROM. However, surgeons should recognize its limitations in treating patients with large amounts of glenoid bone loss and should be prepared to discuss alternative procedures on a case-by-case basis. Absolute indications and contraindications for remplissage are not well defined currently and require further scientific research.

Lower Range of Recurrent Instability Rates Following Bankart Repair and Remplissage Compared to Isolated Bankart Repair in Patients with "Non-Engaging/On-Track" Hill-Sachs Lesions and <20% Glenoid Bone Loss.

PURPOSE: To compare recurrent instability and return to sport rates along with external rotation differences between on-track (non-engaging) Hill-Sachs lesion patients undergoing either an isolated Bankart repair (IBR) or a Bankart repair augmented with a remplissage procedure (B+R). METHODS: A search was conducted using 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only clinical comparative (level of evidence I-III) studies were considered for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the MINORS criteria. RESULTS: Six, level of evidence III studies, totaling 537 patients (202 B+R and 335 IBR) were included for analysis. All patients had <20% glenoid bone loss and a non-engaging, on-track Hill Sachs lesion. At a median final follow-up of 34.7 months, recurrent dislocation rates ranged from 0-7.7% and 3.5-30% in the B+R and IBR groups, respectively. Moreover, subjective instability and revision surgery rates presented lower ranges in the B+R upon comparison with the IBR cohort (0-32% versus 5-71.4% and 0-5% versus 0-35%, respectively). Furthermore, return to pre-injury level of sports ranged from 64-100% in the remplissage augmented group and 50-90% in the IBR cohort. Post-operative external rotation at side varied from 50-63º in the B+R and 55º-63º in the IBR arm. Additional subgroup analysis revealed recurrent dislocation rates in athletes and patients with near-track Hill-Sachs lesions undergoing remplissage augmentation to be 0-5% and 2-47% while ranging 8.8-30% and 9-66% for IBR patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Upon qualitative analysis, ranges of recurrent instability measures including recurrent dislocation rates, are higher in patients undergoing IBR in comparison to B+R. Activity level influences outcomes as athletes were found to have a higher range of recurrent dislocation rates in the IBR group. The addition of remplissage showed a higher range of return to sport rates with comparable post-operative external rotation between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review of Level III studies.

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

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

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

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

Modified Suture Button Latarjet Procedure With Coracoacromial Ligament And Pectoralis Minor Preservation Achieves Good Clinical Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-up: Case Series of Latarjet Technique.

PURPOSES: To evaluate if the modified suture button Latarjet procedure with coracoacromial ligament (CAL) and pectoralis minor (PM) preservation could achieve excellent outcomes at the 2-year follow-up. METHODS: During January 2019 to January 2021, data of patients who underwent the modified suture button Latarjet with CAL and PM preservation in our department was collected. The glenoid bone loss of these patients were above 20% or over 10% with high demands for exercise. Partial coracoid osteotomy was based on the results of the preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) evaluation of the glenoid defect area (GDA) and corresponding coracoid process morphology. The preoperative and postoperative clinical results were assessed. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was utilized to compare improvement in clinical outcomes. Graft-glenoid union and remodeling were assessed using postoperative 3D CT, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed to confirm the integrity of the CAL and PM postoperatively. RESULTS: 35 patients were included in this study; the mean follow-up time was 26.9 ± 1.9 months. No case of recurrent dislocation or sublaxity. Significant improvements were observed in mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain during motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Rowe score, and Walch-Duplay score (P < .001). The percentage of patients achieving at least an MCID improvement in clinical outcomes was: VAS 85.71%; ASES 97.14%; Rowe 100%; Walch-Duplay 97.14%. 33 patients (94.3% of all cases) were able to return to their preoperative sport levels, 34 grafts (97.1%) achieved bone union (1 soft union) in 6.3±2.2 months, and the coracoid grafts restored 97.1±4.0% of the perfect fitting circle (PFC) at the last follow-up. Postoperative CT scan showed that 31 grafts (88.6%) were placed ideally in vertical view. In the axial view, 25 grafts (82.9%) were flushed to the glenoid, whereas 1 and 5 grafts were fixed medially and laterally, respectively. The CAL and PM were visualized postoperatively. No arthropathy was observed in any patient at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The modified suture button Latarjet procedure with CAL and PM preservation obtained good clinical and radiological results without recurrence or complications. A substantial majority of patients (>85%) achieved the MCID for the VAS, ASES, ROWE, and Walch-Duplay scores. Additionally, the malpositioned graft (17.1%) did not cause arthropathy of the joints at 2-year follow-up.

Shoulder Instability-Return to Sports After Injury (SIRSI) Scale Shows That Lack of Psychological Readiness Predicts Outcomes and Recurrence Following Surgical Stabilization.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of psychological readiness to return to sports on clinical outcomes and recurrences in athletes who return to sports following shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent shoulder instability surgery between September 2020 and October 2021 (arthroscopic Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped according to the achievement of psychological readiness to return to play using the SIRSI scale (≥ 55 points) measured at 6 months following surgery. Recurrences were measured and functional outcomes were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Rowe, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS and Rowe scores was calculated using the distribution-based method of ½ standard deviation of the delta (difference between postoperative and preoperative scores). The patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the VAS scale was set at 2.5 based on previous literature. To evaluate the predictive ability of SIRSI a regression model analysis and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used. RESULTS: A total of 108 who achieved psychological readiness (PSR) and 41 who did not (NPSR) met the study criteria. PSR achieved significantly higher percentages of MCID and PASS thresholds for VAS than NPSR (MCID: 68.5% vs 48.7%, p=0.026; PASS: 92.5% vs 58.5%, p<0.001). However, there were no differences in the percentage of patients achieving MCID for the Rowe score between groups (98.1% vs 100%, p=0.999). The only strongest independent predictor of postoperative outcomes was being psychologically ready to return to sports. The SIRSI scale had an excellent predictive ability for recurrences (area under curve 0.745, 95% CI 0.5-0.8). Of those who sustained a recurrence, 20% were not psychologically ready compared to 4.3% who were (p= 0.002). A power analysis was not conducted for this study. CONCLUSION: The SIRSI scale is associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and recurrences in patients who returned to sports following shoulder instability surgery. Patients who were not psychologically ready following shoulder instability surgery had worse clinical outcomes with fewer patients achieving clinically significant outcomes (PASS and MCID) for pain, and a higher risk of recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective cohort study.

MANAGEMENT OF THE FAILED LATARJET PROCEDURE.

AIM: To analyze the causes of failure after a Latarjet procedure and to evaluate the results of revision surgery. METHODS: Single-cohort, retrospective, observational study. Fifteen patients, 13 males, mean age at revision failed Latarjet 38.9 years (range, 20-57), with anterior glenohumeral instability who underwent a revision surgery for a failed Latarjet procedure were reviewed. Failure was defined as subluxation or dislocation. Demographic features, the reason for failure, type of lesions observed, and postoperative clinical and functional status were recorded. Functional status was assessed with the Rowe score. Subjective clinical evaluation was performed using the WOSI Index and subjective shoulder value (SSV). RESULTS: Recurrence occurred in the first year following the Latarjet procedure in 11 (73.3%) patients. The causes of failure were graft avulsion in 3 cases, fracture in 1, coracoid misposition in 2 cases, graft non-union in 1, advanced osteolysis in 4 cases and persistence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion in one. In 3 cases no identifiable cause of failure, but patients generalized severe hyperlaxity was found. Regarding revision surgery after the Latarjet procedure, 8 patients underwent an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure and in 3 patients the graft was repositioned. In the remaining 4 patients an extraarticular capsular reinforcement was performed. Regarding the latter, one patient suffered new dislocations and required an additional revision surgery consisting of an Eden-Hybinette procedure. All patients remained stable after the revision surgery at the latest follow-up, except two who reported subluxations after an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette and an extraarticular capsular reinforcement, but no additional surgical procedure was required. Functional status after revision surgery was satisfactory, with a Rowe mean score noted at 78 (10-100), WOSI score at 829 (225-1425) and a subjective shoulder value scale at 67 points (40-90). CONCLUSION: The causes of failure after a Latarjet procedure were poor bone graft due to mispositioning, avulsion, fracture or resorption, generalized hyperlaxity, and incomplete restoration of the glenoid track. Our study demonstrates that when the cause of failure is identified and addressed, stability is restored, and clinical and functional scores improved.

Glenoid Track Revisited.

The risk of Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) to cause instability depends not only on the HSL but also on the glenoid size. Clinically, the only method to assess the risk of instability considering the dynamic interaction of both, the HSL together with the glenoid bone loss, is the glenoid track concept. Since it was introduced in a cadaveric study, its clinical efficacy and validity have been reported in the literature. Sometimes, the medial margin of the footprint (lateral margin of the glenoid track) is difficult to identify when a HSL is overriding the footprint. In such cases, we propose a method to draw an imaginary line connecting two landmarks. Although 3D-CT is the most accurate and widely used method to assess on/off-track lesions, our interest gradually is shifting towards MRI, which has no radiation concern. The current MR method is still under way. There are various risk factors influencing the recurrent instability after surgery. The glenoid track concept deals with only one of these factors, i.e., instability caused by bony lesions. Therefore, the following two issues are important: 1) how to assess the glenoid track precisely and 2) how to incorporate other risk factors into consideration. The former can be achieved by obtaining the custom-made glenoid track width using not the fixed value of 83%, but more individualized value obtained by measuring the active horizontal extension angle of the opposite shoulder in the sitting position. At the same time, the gray zone (peripheral-track lesion) needs to be clearly defined. The latter can be achieved by incorporating the risk factors other than the bony lesions. One example is the glenoid track instability management score (GTIMS), a combination of the glenoid track concept and the instability severity index (ISI) score. This new scoring system is expected to increase the predictive potential of the scoring system, and accordingly to enhance clinical decision making.

Can the presence of SLAP-5 lesions be predicted by using the critical shoulder angle in traumatic anterior shoulder instability?

OBJECTIVE: Although SLAP-5 lesions are associated with recurrent dislocations, their causes and pathomechanisms have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the association between SLAP-5 lesions and scapular morphology in traumatic anterior shoulder instability (ASI). We hypothesized that there may be a relationship between SLAP-5 lesions and scapular morphology in traumatic ASI patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 74 patients with isolated Bankart lesions and 69 with SLAP-5 lesions who underwent arthroscopic labral repair for ASI. Critical shoulder angle (CSA) was measured on the roentgenograms, while glenoid inclination (GI) and glenoid version (GV) were measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by two observers in two separate sessions blinded to each other. Both groups were compared in terms of CSA, GI, and GV. RESULTS: The mean ages of Bankart and SLAP-5 patients were 28.4±9.1 and 27.9±7.7 (P=0.89), respectively; their mean CSA values were 33.1°±2.6° and 28.2°±2.4°, respectively (P<0.001). The ROC analysis's cut-off value was 30.5°, with 75.0% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity (AUC = 0.830). SLAP-5 lesions were more common on the dominant side than isolated Bankart lesions (P=0.021), but no difference was found between the groups in terms of GI and GV (P=0.334, P=0.081, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In ASI, low CSA values appeared to be related to SLAP-5 lesions, and the cut-off value of CSA for SLAP lesion formation was 30.5° with 75.0% sensitivity and 76.7% specificity. Scapula morphology may be related to the SLAP-5 lesions, and CSA can be used as an additional parameter in provocative diagnostic tests and medical imaging techniques for the detection of SLAP lesions accompanying Bankart lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III retrospective case-control study.

Association of the Stability Ratio With Postoperative Clinical Function and Recurrence of Instability in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: The stability ratio (SR) is used to assess the stability of the glenoid in anterior shoulder instability (ASI). However, the association between the SR and postoperative clinical function and instability recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair is unknown. Hypothesis: Patients with a higher SR would have better postoperative clinical scores and a lower incidence of recurrent instability than patients with a lower SR after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 62 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for ASI between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up data. The preoperative SR was calculated via biomechanical testing based on patient-specific 3-dimensional glenoid models, and patients were evenly divided into 2 groups: high SR (≥16.13%) and low SR (<16.13%). Baseline information (patient characteristics, clinical history, bone defect area [BDA], and SR), clinical scores at the final follow-up (Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons), and instability recurrence were compared between the 2 groups. Results: No significant differences were found in the baseline information between the high- and low-SR groups, except for the BDA (8.5% [high-SR group] vs 11.9% [low-SR group]; P = .01). No patients in the high-SR group had recurrent instability, while 6 patients (19.4%) had recurrent instability in the low-SR group (P = .02). Patients in the high-SR group had superior clinical outcomes compared with those in the low-SR group in terms of postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Index scores (median, 205 vs 410, respectively; P = .006) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (median, 98.3 vs 95, respectively; P = .02). Conclusion: In the present study, the SR was significantly associated with postoperative clinical function and recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ASI.

Periostin Is a Biomarker for Anterior Shoulder Instability: Proteomic Analysis of Synovial Fluid.

BACKGROUND: The incremental biological changes in the synovial microenvironment of the shoulder in acute and chronic instability that may contribute to joint degeneration are poorly understood. Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid in patients with shoulder instability may improve our understanding of proteins that are shed into shoulder synovial fluid after an injury. HYPOTHESIS: Injury-specific factors such as the direction of instability and the severity of glenoid and humeral bone loss are associated with the proteome of synovial fluid in patients with shoulder instability. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Synovial fluid lavage samples were compared between patients with anterior (n = 12) and posterior (n = 8) instability and those without instability (n = 5). Synovial proteins were identified with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Orthogonal validation of protein targets found to be significant on tandem mass spectrometry was performed in a separate set of prospective patients with Western blotting. Data were processed and analyzed, and P values were adjusted with the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were included. Tandem mass spectrometry identified 720 protein groups in synovial fluid of patients with shoulder instability. There were 4 synovial proteins that were significantly expressed in patients with anterior instability relative to posterior instability: periostin (POSTN) (adjusted P value = .03; log fold change [logFc] = 4.7), transforming growth factor beta-induced protein ig-h3 (adjusted P value = .05; logFc = 1.7), collagen type VI alpha-3 chain (adjusted P value = .04; logFc = 2.6), and coagulation factor V (adjusted P value = .04; logFc = -3.3). Among these targets, POSTN showed a moderate correlation with the Hill-Sachs lesion size (r = 0.7). Prospective validation with Western blotting confirmed a significantly higher level of POSTN in synovial fluid of patients with anterior instability (P = .00025; logFc = 5.1). CONCLUSION: Proteomic analysis enriched our understanding of proteins that were secreted into shoulder synovial fluid of patients with shoulder instability. The identification of POSTN, a proinflammatory catabolic protein involved with tissue remodeling and repair, as a significant target in anterior shoulder instability is a novel finding. Therefore, further study is warranted to determine the role that POSTN may play in the progression of bone loss and posttraumatic osteoarthritis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proteomic analysis of synovial fluid in patients with shoulder instability improved our understanding of this abnormality after an injury.

Long-term results of arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for failed anterior shoulder instability repair using suture anchors at a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder instability repair has been proposed, and early clinical results have been promising. However, long-term results after this procedure and the probable risk factors for failure have not been sufficiently discussed in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight patients who were diagnosed with recurrent anteroinferior shoulder instability after failed Bankart repair, treated with ACRR between September 1998 and November 2003 and able to be contacted were included. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study due to the use of SureTak anchors for fixation, and 5 other patients refused to participate in the study due to lack of interest (3 patients) or lack of time (2 patients). The remaining shoulders were clinically examined at a minimum of ten years after surgery via the ASES, Constant, AAOS, Rowe, Dawson and VAS scores for pain and stability. Degenerative arthropathy was assessed with the modified Samilson-Prieto score. RESULTS: All 31 remaining shoulders were evaluated at a mean time of 11.86 years (142.4 months) after surgery. Six patients (19.35%) reported redisolcation after the revision procedure, 4 of whom were affected by a new significant shoulder trauma. The ROWE and Constant scores improved significantly. Moderate to severe dislocation arthropathy was observed in 19.4% of patients. Five patients (16.2%) were not satisfied with the procedure. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up after ACRR shows predictable results, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, good to excellent patient-reported outcome scores and minimal radiological degenerative changes. However, with an average recurrence rate of 19.3% after 11.86 years, the redislocation rate appears high. With careful patient selection, recurrence rates can be significantly reduced.

Clinical Outcomes in Prospective versus Retrospective Studies on Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play amongst studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100. A chi-square test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three studies were included in the analysis with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. Encompassing a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of re-dislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective (p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective (p = 0.004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (p = 0.013) There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play in prospective and retrospective studies was 90% and 91%, respectively (p=0.548). The overall rate of complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% and 0.78% in the retrospective studies (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations, subluxations are higher in prospective studies compared to retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

The glenoid track concept is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: a computed tomography scan study.

Background: The glenoid track concept identifies patients with "off-track" (engaging) Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) as poor candidates for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) due to the high risk of shoulder instability recurrence. Purpose: To retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index, using preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans, in a cohort of patients with failed ABR. We hypothesized that all patients with a failed ABR would have engaging ("off-track") HSLs on preoperative CT scan. Type of Study: CT scan study. Methods: Preoperative CT scan of 45 patients, seen in our facility for failed ABR, was used to retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index. The risk of recurrence was also calculated for each patient using Instability Severity Index Score (ISI-Score) and Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS). There were 37 failed isolated ABRs and 8 associated HS remplissage. The mean t age at surgery was 24 years (range, 15-52) and instability recurred at a mean of 29 months postoperative (range, 3-167). Results: Preoperative CT scan imaging identified "off-track" bony lesions in 85% of patients (38/45) and "on-track" lesions in 15% (7/45). No significant differences were noted between the 2 groups (off-track vs. on-track) regarding patient age, hyperlaxity, sports participation, size of HS lesion, or ISI-Score. The mean glenoid bone loss was 15.7% (range, 4-36%) with mean HS width was greater than 20 mm in 66% of CT scans. The preoperative ISI-Score was predictive of failures (>3 points in all patients) with no difference between on-track and off-track patients (6.3 ± 1.7 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7, P = .453). By contrast, the GTIMS did not predict failures as there was a significant difference between GTIMS for on-track and off-track patients (2.1 ± 1.3 vs. 6.6 ± 1.7). Conclusions: The glenoid track concept alone is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: in the present series of failed ABR, 15% of shoulders had "on-track" (non-engaging) lesions on preoperative CT scan. In patients, with "on-track" bony lesions, the ISI-Score is a useful predictive tool to detect patients at risk of failure, while the GTIMS is not.

Glenoid track and subcritical Hill-Sachs lesion.

Background: We have proposed the concept of glenoid track ("on-track/off-track" lesion) to evaluate the risk of engagement of the Hill-Sachs lesion with the glenoid after arthroscopic Bankart repair. This concept has been widely used and many clinical validation studies have been reported. To measure the glenoid track width, we have recommended to use 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT) images. However, the CT method has the issue of radiation exposure and involves time and effort to make 3-dimensional CT images from 2-dimensional images. For these reasons, there are several reports describing the measurement method using magnetic resonance imaging. Recently, the threshold of the critical glenoid bone loss becomes lower. A zone of bone loss below the critical size is called "subcritical bone loss", which might be related to deterioration of quality of life and bone grafting is recommended. We applied the concept of "subcritical bone loss" to the glenoid track. Patients with "on-track" lesions can be divided into 2 subgroups: those with a "peripheral-track" lesion (most medial 1/4) and those with a "central-track" lesion (the rest 3/4). More recently, similar evaluation methods to evaluate the risk of "off-track" lesions have been reported: ''distance to dislocation'' and "Hill-Sachs interval/glenoid track ratio". Also, similar concept to "peripheral-track" lesion, "near-track" lesion was reported. The concept of "peripheral-track" lesion is a concept of assessing an "on-track" lesion which is very close to the medial margin of the glenoid track (subcritical bone loss). Methods: Similar evaluation methods to evaluate the risk of "off-track" or "peripheral-track" lesions were proposed in the literature. A review was performed by searching PubMed. Journal articles published between January 2014 and January 2023 were taken into account. They were compared and their differences were explained. Results: The "near-track" lesion concept is similar to "peripheral-track" lesion. However, the cutoff value is different: Hill-Sachs occupancy ≥ 75% is the "peripheral-track" lesion, whereas "distance to dislocation" < 8 mm is the "near-track" lesion. Conclusion: We introduced update of the glenoid track concept including the evaluation method, peripheral-track lesion, and its clinical application.

Effective glenoid track: A novel concept for shoulder instability.

Background: Assessment and quantification of bone loss in cases of shoulder instability is critical for surgical decision making. The glenoid track concept was initially developed to assess Hill Sachs lesions taking into account the native glenoid diameter of the contralateral shoulder and assessing the degree of glenoid bone loss. However, it can not be reverse calculated to determine the effect of an addition of a bone block. We have developed a novel model to help address this problem yielding an "effective glenoid track" (EGT). Methods: Begin as we always do by using Itoi's concept for assessment of tracking based on the CT scan cuts. Next step is to calucate the Hill Sach's interval (HSI) which will require an MRI scan. Conclusion: The EGT allows for calculation of residual tracking of Hill Sachs lesions post a bone block addition and will aid in surgical decision making.

Diagnosis and treatment of posterior shoulder instability based on the ABC classification.

Posterior shoulder instability (PSI) is less common than anterior shoulder instability, accounting for 2-12% of total shoulder instability cases. However, a much higher frequency of PSI has been recently indicated, suggesting that PSI accounts for up to 24% of all young and active patients who are surgically treated for shoulder instability. This differentiation might be explained due to the frequent misinterpretation of vague symptoms, as PSI does not necessarily present as a recurrent posterior instability event, but often also as mere shoulder pain during exertion, limited range of motion, or even as yet asymptomatic concomitant finding. In order to optimize current treatment, it is crucial to identify the various clinical presentations and often unspecific symptoms of PSI, ascertain the causal instability mechanism, and accurately diagnose the subgroup of PSI. This review should guide the reader to correctly identify PSI, providing diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies.

Remplissage May Decrease the Redislocation Rate After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients With an Engaging Hill-Sachs Defect: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With Minimal 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The redislocation rate after arthroscopic Bankart repair (BR) among patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) may be reduced with the use of remplissage. PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of adding remplissage to an arthroscopic BR in patients with concomitant HSL. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were searched between February 2022 and April 2023 with the terms "remplissage" and "shoulder instability" according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were formed using the population, intervention, control, and outcome method; the investigation included studies that compared BR with and without remplissage and had ≥24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: From 802 articles found during the initial search, 7 studies with a total of 837 patients-558 receiving isolated BR (BR group) and 279 receiving BR with remplissage (BR+REMP)-were included. The probability of recurrence of instability among patients with an engaging HSL was significantly diminished in the BR+REMP group compared with the BR group (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.24; P < .001). Regarding shoulder range of motion, the BR+REMP group achieved increased forward flexion (mean difference [MD], 1.97°; 95% CI, 1.49° to 2.46°; P < .001) and decreased external rotation in adduction (MD, -1.43°; 95% CI, -2.40° to -0.46°; P = .004) compared with the BR group. Regarding patient-reported outcome measures, the BR+REMP group had Rowe (MD, 2.53; 95% CI, -1.48 to 6.54; P = .21) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (MD, -61.60; 95% CI, -148.03 to 24.82; P = .162) scores that were comparable with those of the BR group. CONCLUSION: Remplissage resulted in a 9-fold decrease in the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic BR in patients with HSL. Remplissage not only led to an increase in forward flexion but also only slightly limited patients' external rotation in adduction. WOSI and Rowe scores after remplissage at the final 24-month follow-up were comparable with those obtained after isolated Bankart repair.

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.

Glenoid augmentation for subcritical bone loss: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Anterior shoulder instability can be debilitating for young, active individuals, and increasing magnitudes of glenoid bone loss (GBL) predisposes patients to recurrent instability and increases the likelihood of failure of soft-tissue only repairs. It is widely accepted that GBL >25% should be treated with a glenoid bone grafting procedure. However, consensus is lacking on the optimal management in the setting of subcritical GBL, typically classified as >13.5%. This article reviews the pathoanatomy relevant to anterior shoulder instability and subcritical GBL, while highlighting existing evidence regarding open augmentation procedures in comparison to other treatment options for this subpopulation. Methods: A narrative review of the current literature was conducted focusing on subcritical GBL in anterior glenoid stabilization procedures, including review of forward citation and reference lists of selected articles. Key Content and Findings: Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for obtaining precise measurements of subcritical GBL, defined as <13.5%, using the best-fit circle method. There is debate surrounding the optimal surgical management of subcritical GBL. Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) remains the predominate surgery performed for primary anterior shoulder instability, while glenoid augmentation and open Bankart repair continue to be used sparingly in the United States. Historically, the Latarjet procedure was considered for substantial glenoid defects, but the illumination of subcritical GBL has expanded its indications. Arthroscopic, soft tissue-only repairs with the addition of remplissage, has been shown to have similar 2-year outcomes to the Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL, which has been limited in the study of subcritical GBL. Additionally, utilization of distal tibial allograft and local autograft is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, again, with limited prospective studies in the subcritical GBL population. Conclusions: There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment approach to recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of subcritical GBL. Conversely, there is a growing agreement that isolated ABR is likely inadequate and subcritical GBL should prompt consideration of a more robust operation. To this end, interest in glenoid bone augmentation continues to grow as a reliable technique for recreating the native architecture and restoring glenohumeral stability are developed.