Surgical technique and clinical outcome of arthroscopic shoulder stabilization via suture anchors using the lasso-loop stitch

During arthroscopic Bankart-repair the lasso-loop-stitch can be used. The clinical outcome of this technical modification to a broadly used procedure is not known. We followed-up 24 patients treated with this technique over 30 months. We found an excellent clinical outcome in 96% of all cases. The average Rowe-score was 96.3 points. The mean QuickDash was 2.8 points. Using the lasso-loop-stitch in arthroscopic Bankart-repair is safe and results in very good clinical outcomes. It might lead to an accentuated labral bump and enables secure knot-tying with knot-positioning away from the articular cartilage while avoiding the suture cutting through the tissue.

Atypical traumatic anterior shoulder instability with excessive joint laxity: recurrent shoulder subluxation without a history of dislocation

BACKGROUND

No previously published studies have examined recurrent traumatic incomplete events in patients with excessive joint laxity. The purpose of this study is to investigate outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent traumatic shoulder subluxation in patients with excessive joint laxity but no history of dislocation.

METHODS

This study included 23 patients with glenoid bone defects less than 20% who underwent arthroscopic stabilization of recurrent shoulder subluxation and were available for at least 2 years follow-up. Outcomes were assessed with the subjective shoulder value (SSV), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, Rowe score, and sports/recreation activity level.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, overall functional scores improved significantly (p <  0.001), compared to preoperative scores: SSV improved from 49.1 to 90.4; Rowe score improved from 36.7 to 90.2; and UCLA shoulder score improved from 26.3 to 32.5. Patient satisfaction rate was 87% (20/23 patients). Sports/recreation activity level (return to premorbid activity level; grade I = 100% to grade IV = less than 70%) was grade I in 7 patients, grade II in 11, grade III in 3, grade IV in 2. The incidence of any glenoid bone defect was 61% (14/23 patients), and the mean glenoid bone defect size was 8%; among these 14 patients, 8 (35%) exhibited 15-20% glenoid bone defects. Instability reoccurred in 2 patients (9%) who had 15-20% glenoid bone defect.

CONCLUSION

Despite excessive joint laxity, overall functional outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization of recurrent shoulder subluxation were satisfactory. However, arthroscopic Bankart repair may not be reliable in patients with excessive joint laxity plus a glenoid bone defect size of more than approximately 15%.

Concomitant SLAP repair does not influence the surgical outcome for arthroscopic Bankart repair of traumatic shoulder dislocations

BACKGROUND

Prior studies revealed the presence of superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) injury together with Bankart lesions in some patients. The purpose of the study is to compare the clinical results of isolated Bankart repairs with the clinical results of Bankart repairs when performed with concomitant SLAP repairs.

METHODS

The patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery for treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability were evaluated retrospectively. Group 1 consisted of 19 patients who had arthroscopic SLAP repair together with Bankart repair. The mean age of the patients was 23. Group 2 consisted of 38 patients who underwent isolated Bankart repair. The mean age was 24. Knotless anchors were used in both groups.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 34 months (range: 26-72). In group 1, the mean preoperative Constant score was 84 (range: 74-90, standard deviation (SD): 5.91) and Rowe score was 64.1 (range: 40-70, SD: 8.14). In group 2, the preoperative Constant score was 84.4 (range: 70-96, SD: 5.88) and Rowe score was 60 (range: 45-70, SD: 7.95). In group 1, the postoperative mean Constant score raised to 96.8 (range: 88-100, SD: 2.91) and the mean Rowe score raised to 92.3 (range: 85-100, SD: 5.17). In group 2, the postoperative mean Constant score was 94.9 (range: 88-100, SD: 3.70) and the mean Rowe score was 94.2 (range: 80-100, SD: 4.71). The difference between the scores of two groups was insignificant ( p > 0.05). When the numbers of redislocations and range of motion were compared, no significant difference was found ( p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Accompanying SLAP repair in surgical treatment with Bankart repair for shoulder instability does not affect the results negatively. Properly repaired labral tears extending from anterior inferior to the posterior superior of the glenoid in instability treatment have the same outcome in overall results as repaired isolated Bankart lesions.

Back to Sports After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Recurrent instability following primary arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder is a common complication. Young, athletic patients are at the greatest risk of recurring instability. To date, the literature contains insufficient description regarding whether return to sports is possible after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.

HYPOTHESIS

Patients presenting with recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic stabilization should expect limitations in terms of their ability to partake in sporting activities after revision surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Twenty athletes who underwent arthroscopic revision stabilization of the shoulder after failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair were included in the study after completing inclusion and exclusion criteria surveys. Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), Shoulder Sport Activity Score (SSAS), and the Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sports (SPORTS) scores were determined to assess the participants' ability to partake in sporting activities. Furthermore, sport type and sport level were classified and recorded. To assess function and stability, Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and Walch-Duplay scores were measured and recorded.

RESULTS

Follow-up consultations were carried out after a mean of 28.7 months. The mean age at follow-up examination was 27.75 years. At the time of follow-up, 70% of the patients were able to return to their original sporting activities at the same level. However, 90% of patients described a limitation in their shoulder when participating in their sports. At 28.7 months after surgery, the mean ASOSS score was 76.8; the SSAS score decreased from 7.85 before first-time dislocation to 5.35 at follow-up (P < .005). The SPORTS score was 5.2 out of 10 at the follow-up consultation. Function- and instability-specific scores showed good to excellent results. The mean external rotational deficit for high external rotation was 9.25°, and for low external rotation it was 12°.

CONCLUSION

Patients can return to their original type and level of sport after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair, but they must expect persistent deficits and limitations to the shoulder when put under the strains of sporting activity. Patients with shoulder injuries who partake in sports that put greater demand on the shoulder show the smallest probabilities of returning to sporting activity.

Physical Therapy Protocols for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background:

Outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair can be highly dependent on compliance and participation in physical therapy. Additionally, there are many variations in physician-recommended physical therapy protocols.

Hypothesis:

The rehabilitation protocols of academic orthopaedic surgery departments vary widely despite the presence of consensus protocols.

Study Design:

Descriptive epidemiology study.

Level of Evidence:

Level 3.

Methods:

Web-based arthroscopic Bankart rehabilitation protocols available online from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited orthopaedic surgery programs were included for review. Individual protocols were reviewed to evaluate for the presence or absence of recommended therapies, goals for completion of ranges of motion, functional milestones, exercise start times, and recommended time to return to sport.

Results:

Thirty protocols from 27 (16.4%) total institutions were identified out of 164 eligible for review. Overall, 9 (30%) protocols recommended an initial period of strict immobilization. Variability existed between the recommended time periods for sling immobilization (mean, 4.8 ± 1.8 weeks). The types of exercises and their start dates were also inconsistent. Goals to full passive range of motion (mean, 9.2 ± 2.8 weeks) and full active range of motion (mean, 12.2 ± 2.8 weeks) were consistent with other published protocols; however, wide ranges existed within the reviewed protocols as a whole. Only 10 protocols (33.3%) included a timeline for return to sport, and only 3 (10%) gave an estimate for return to game competition. Variation also existed when compared with the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists’ (ASSET) consensus protocol.

Conclusion:

Rehabilitation protocols after arthroscopic Bankart repair were found to be highly variable. They also varied with regard to published consensus protocols. This discrepancy may lead to confusion among therapists and patients.

Clinical Relevance:

This study highlights the importance of attending surgeons being very clear and specific with regard to their physical therapy instructions to patients and therapists.

Management of Complex Anterior Shoulder Instability: a Case-Based Approach

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The goal of this review is to provide a guide on surgical decision-making options for complex anterior shoulder instability using a case-based approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Arthroscopic Bankart repair is well documented for having successful outcomes in patients with isolated labral tear involvement with minimal bone loss. Latarjet is a generally accepted procedure in patients with 20-30% glenoid bone loss. When bone loss exceeds that which cannot be managed through Latarjet, a range of options exist and are highly dependent upon the extent of osseous deficiency on both the glenoid and humeral sides, surgeon experience, and patient-specific factors. The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of chronic locked shoulder dislocations has been described as a successful management option. Treatment options for complex anterior shoulder instability range widely based on patients' presenting exam, surgical history, amount of glenoid bone loss, size of Hill-Sachs lesion, and surgeon preference. When selecting the appropriate surgical intervention, the treating surgeon must consider the patient history, physical exam, and preoperative imaging along with patient expectations.

Return to Sports After Shoulder Stabilization Surgery for Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Young athletes continue to experience traumatic shoulder instability and are often plagued by recurrent instability, limiting their return to sport. The purpose of this paper was to review return to sport in athletes after shoulder stabilization surgery for anterior shoulder instability.

RECENT FINDINGS

Athletes managed nonoperatively demonstrate unacceptably high rates of recurrent instability and are less likely to successfully return to sport. Operative management includes capsuloligamentous repair (arthroscopic versus open) and bone augmentation techniques. While modern arthroscopic techniques have provided favorable outcomes, open techniques have demonstrated lower recurrence rates among young collision athletes. A subset of athletes continue to experience recurrent instability, leading to further investigation of concomitant pathologies, which may put patients at risk of failure following Bankart repair. Bony augmentation procedures remain favorable for patients with glenoid bone loss; however, what constitutes critical bone loss in the decision between anterior labral repair versus bone augmentation has recently been questioned. Operative management of anterior shoulder instability provides superior results, including lower recurrent instability and return to sport. Future research on patient-specific risk factors may aid surgical decision-making and optimization of outcomes.

Clinical Outcome of Arthroscopic Remplissage as Augmentation During Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Purpose

We aimed to assess functional outcomes and postoperative recurrence rate associated with the remplissage procedure used for bone augmentation with Bankart repair in patients with Hill-Sachs lesions after shoulder dislocation.

Methods

Preoperative computed tomography was performed to check for bony Bankart lesions,calculate the bone defect rate, and estimate the risk for re-dislocation. Functional and clinical scores were assessed preoperatively and at three months, six months, and one year postoperatively.

Results

Between 2011 and 2014, 18 patients (17 male; age at surgery, 29.0±10.4 years; 18 affected shoulders) underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with arthroscopic remplissage (remplissage group), and 18 sex- and age-matched controls underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair alone (control group). The incidence of bony Bankart lesion and glenoid bone defect was significantly higher in the remplissage group. No complications, re-dislocation, or re-subluxation was noted during or after the operation. Postoperatively, the range of motion and muscular weakness alleviated with time, and the clinical scores improved significantly from the preoperative values. However, the remplissage group showed significantly restricted shoulder flexion, abduction, internal rotation and external rotation even at one year postoperatively. Compared to the control group, the remplissage group showed significantly lower Rowe scores preoperatively, and both Rowe scores and University of California-Los Angeles scale scores remained significantly lower throughout the one-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Despite some restriction of external rotation, remplissage leads to better clinical scores and no recurrence, providing a valid means of augmentation for Bankart repair in high-risk patients with engaged Hill-Sachs lesion.

An Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Bankart Repair Configurations

BACKGROUND

Suture anchor repair for anterior shoulder instability can be performed using a number of different repair techniques, but none has been proven superior in terms of anatomic and biomechanical properties. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the anatomic footprint coverage and biomechanical characteristics of 4 different Bankart repair techniques: (1) single row with simple sutures, (2) single row with horizontal mattress sutures, (3) double row with sutures, and (4) double row with labral tape. The hypotheses were as follows: (1) double-row techniques would improve the footprint coverage and biomechanical properties compared with single-row techniques, (2) horizontal mattress sutures would increase the footprint coverage compared with simple sutures, and (3) repair techniques with labral tape and sutures would not show different biomechanical properties.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Twenty-four fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens were dissected. The native labrum was removed and the footprint marked and measured. Repair for each of the 4 groups was performed, and the uncovered footprint was measured using a 3-dimensional digitizer. The strength of the repair sites was assessed using a servohydraulic testing machine and a digital video system to record load to failure, cyclic displacement, and stiffness.

RESULTS

The double-row repair techniques with sutures and labral tape covered 73.4% and 77.0% of the footprint, respectively. These percentages were significantly higher than the footprint coverage achieved by single-row repair techniques using simple sutures (38.1%) and horizontal mattress sutures (32.8%) ( P < .001). The footprint coverage of the simple suture and horizontal mattress suture groups was not significantly different ( P = .44). There were no significant differences in load to failure, cyclic displacement, or stiffness between the single-row and double-row groups or between the simple suture and horizontal mattress suture techniques. Likewise, there was no difference in the biomechanical properties of the double-row repair techniques with sutures versus labral tape.

CONCLUSION

Double-row repair techniques provided better coverage of the native footprint of the labrum but did not provide superior biomechanical properties compared with single-row repair techniques. There was no difference in footprint coverage or biomechanical strength between the simple suture and horizontal mattress suture repair techniques.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the double-row repair techniques had no difference in initial strength, they may improve healing in high-risk patients by improving the footprint coverage.

Open shoulder stabilization: current trends and 1-year postoperative complications

Background

Shoulder instability is commonly treated by arthroscopic stabilization. However, open stabilization procedures remain important in management of complex instability. Despite continued use of these procedures, the relative frequency of related complications remains poorly described. This study investigates current trends in open shoulder stabilization and characterizes major postoperative complications.

Methods

PearlDiver, a national insurance database of orthopedic patients, was used to identify open shoulder stabilization procedures from 2007 to 2010. Current Procedural Terminology codes for 4 procedures—Bankart repair, coracoid transfer, and anterior and posterior glenoid bone grafting—were used to track procedural trends. The 1-year postoperative complications were identified and categorized into 5 groups: dislocation treated with closed reduction, closed manipulation under anesthesia, reoperation with arthroscopy, reoperation with open surgery, and others. χ² analysis determined statistical significance.

Results

There were 2678 open shoulder stabilization procedures performed, with a 1-year complication rate of 12.3%. Relative proportion of open Bankart repairs decreased (82.5% to 69.8%), whereas proportion of coracoid transfers increased (7.7% to 19%). Posterior glenoid bone grafting had the highest complication rate (20.7%). Rate of total complications was 9.8% in patients 10-24 years, 13.6% in patients 25-54 years, and 25.9% in patients >55 years.

Conclusions

Based on our patient database sample, a significant decline in the relative use of open Bankart repair was observed. Our analysis indicates that the use of bone transfer procedures was correlated with significantly higher reoperation rates than open Bankart repair, particularly in the older patient cohort. Further studies comparing open stabilization procedures with contemporary arthroscopic techniques are indicated.

Comparison of 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality After Arthroscopic Bankart, Open Bankart, and Latarjet-Bristow Procedures: A Review of 2864 Cases

Background:

Surgical intervention for anterior shoulder instability is commonly performed and is highly successful in reducing instances of recurrent instability.

Purpose:

To determine and compare the incidence of 30-day complications and patient and surgical risk factors for complications for arthroscopic Bankart, open Bankart, and Latarjet-Bristow procedures.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

All arthroscopic Bankart, open Bankart, and Latarjet-Bristow procedures from 2005 to 2014 from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) prospective database were analyzed. Baseline patient variables were assessed, including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes measures included length of operation, length of hospital stay, need for hospital admission, 30-day readmission, and 30-day return to the operating room. Binary logistic regression was performed for the presence of any complications after all 3 procedures.

Results:

There were 2864 surgical procedures (410 open Bankart, 163 Latarjet-Bristow, and 2291 arthroscopic Bankart) included. There was no significant difference with regard to age (P = .11), body mass index (P = .17), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .423), or CCI (P = .479) for each group. The Latarjet-Bristow procedure had the highest overall complication rate (5.5%) compared with open (1.0%) and arthroscopic (0.6%) Bankart repairs. The Latarjet-Bristow procedure had significantly longer mean operative times (P < .001) in addition to the highest 30-day return rate to the operating room (4.3%; 95% confidence interval, 1.2%-7.4%). Smoking status was an independent predictor of a postoperative complication (P = .05; odds ratio, 8.0) after Latarjet-Bristow.

Conclusion:

Surgical intervention for anterior shoulder instability has a low rate of complication (arthroscopic Bankart, 0.6%; open Bankart, 1.0%; Latarjet-Bristow, 5.5%) in the early postoperative period, with the most common being surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, and return to the operating room.

Medial Posterior Capsular Plication Reduces Anterior Shoulder Instability Similar to Remplissage Without Restricting Motion in the Setting of an Engaging Hill-Sachs Defect

BACKGROUND

Numerous surgical options for the management of engaging Hill-Sachs lesions exist, of which remplissage has emerged as one of the most popular arthroscopic techniques. Remplissage is not without disadvantages, however, and has been demonstrated to potentially result in a loss of external rotation (ER) due to nonanatomic tethering of the infraspinatus tendon and a potential decrease in infraspinatus strength clinically.

PURPOSE

The efficacy of posterior medial capsular plication in addition to Bankart repair was examined as an arthroscopic management strategy for an engaging Hill-Sachs defect.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were utilized for the study. After testing baseline translation and motion, 30% Hill-Sachs lesions were created in each specimen. Three experimental groups were assembled: (1) isolated Bankart repair (HSD), (2) Bankart repair with remplissage (RM), and (3) Bankart repair with posterior medial capsular plication (PL). Biomechanical testing was performed to determine anterior translation, range of motion, and Hill-Sachs engagement. Translation and motion measurements were normalized to the baseline laxity values for each specimen.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in anterior translation was noted at 60° of abduction and 60° of ER for both the PL and RM groups compared with the HSD group throughout most of the joint loads tested ( P < .05), but no significant differences were noted between the PL and RM groups at any load. The RM group had significantly less normalized ER at 60° of abduction compared with the HSD and PL groups ( P < .05). There were no differences in internal rotation between the groups. All 8 specimens in the HSD group engaged, while no specimens in the RM and PL groups engaged ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In a cadaveric model, medial posterior capsular plication as an adjunct to Bankart repair offers similar resistance to anterior translation and Hill-Sachs engagement as compared with remplissage in the setting of an engaging Hill-Sachs defect. Medial posterior capsular plication results in less restriction of ER compared with remplissage without any significant limitation of internal rotation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Posterior medial capsular plication reduces translation and engagement similarly to remplissage, without any restriction in motion.

Trends in Surgical Management of Shoulder Instability

Background:

Optimal surgical management of anterior shoulder instability remains controversial. There is a need to assess the most recent trends for primary and revision shoulder stabilization surgery using a national database significantly larger than those previously utilized.

Hypothesis:

Most shoulder stabilization procedures are performed arthroscopically. Examining revision procedures, we hypothesized that open procedures would result in decreased revision stabilizations compared with arthroscopic procedures and that most revision procedures would be open Bankart or bone transfer procedures regardless of the index procedure technique.

Study Design:

Descriptive epidemiology study.

Methods:

The MarketScan Database was searched using International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to identify patients who underwent any shoulder stabilization procedure between 2008 and 2012. Regression analysis was used to evaluate trends between patient groups. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to identify differences in trends seen yearly. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the likelihood of undergoing a revision stabilization procedure.

Results:

A total of 66,564 shoulder stabilization procedures were identified from 2008 through 2012: 60,248 arthroscopic stabilization procedures (90.5%) and 6316 open stabilization procedures (9.5%), including 1623 bone block procedures. Arthroscopic stabilization procedures increased in total number and percentage of all procedures in each year of the study. Bone block procedures increased in number each year, although other open procedures decreased during the study period. Males underwent more stabilization procedures, while patients between the ages of 10 and 19 years were most likely to undergo any procedure. Patients who underwent bone block stabilization were significantly less likely to undergo a second stabilization procedure during the study period when compared with open Bankart repair (OR, 0.582; 95% CI, 0.405-0.836; P < .05) and arthroscopic Bankart repair (OR, 0.587; 95% CI, 0.418-0.824; P < .05). No statistically significant difference in revision stabilization was seen when comparing arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair (OR, 0.934; 95% CI, 0.863-1.139).

Conclusion:

Although the number of arthroscopic shoulder stabilization surgeries continues to increase, our data show a consistent increase, not seen in prior studies, in the number of bone block procedures. Contrary to some studies, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of a second procedure between patients initially undergoing arthroscopic compared with open Bankart repair.

Rotator interval closure has no additional effect on shoulder stability compared to Bankart repair alone

PURPOSE

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) provides satisfactory results for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, but the high recurrence rate post-ABR remain a concern. One of the adjunct procedures proposed to improve ABR results is arthroscopic rotator interval closure (ARIC). This study prospectively evaluated the outcomes of ABRs alone compared to combined ABR + ARIC and identified risk factors related to failure of each procedure.

METHODS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients (mean age 23.1 (18.3-37.5) years; 37 males) underwent arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent anterior traumatic shoulder instability. Twenty patients underwent ABR alone and 19 underwent ABR + ARIC. Remplissage was added when glenoid engagement was observed during surgery. All patients were prospectively followed, and their postoperative courses were reviewed and functionally assessed at the last visit.

RESULTS

The re-dislocation rate was higher in the ABR + ARIC group compared to the ABR only group at a mean follow-up of 4.2 (2-5.6) years (3 vs. 0, P = 0.06). More subluxations were found in the ABR only group (2 vs. 1, respectively; P = 0.58). The final limitation of range of motion (ROM) compared with the preoperative ROM was similar in both groups. Remplissage procedures were performed more often in the ABR only group [12 (60%) vs. 4 (21%), P = 0.013].

CONCLUSIONS

ARIC performed as an adjunct to ABR showed no superiority in attaining value-added stability compared to ABR alone. Adding a remplissage procedure may achieve better stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2.

Isolated HAGL lesion after arthroscopic Bankart repair in a professional soccer player

Post-traumatic anterior shoulder instability commonly occurs following an avulsion of capsulolabral complex from glenoid (Bankart lesion) or rarely after humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments (HAGL lesion). Arthroscopic Bankart repair offers high success rates of healing. However, trauma following the treatment may cause implant failure or re-avulsion of the treated tissue. We aim to present the diagnosis and treatment of an isolated HAGL lesion in a professional soccer player who had previously undergone arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Management of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion: arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair versus Latarjet procedure

PURPOSE

This study compared the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair and Latarjet operation in patients with a large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.

METHODS

Thirty-seven shoulders subjected to arthroscopic remplissage with a Bankart repair (group A) and 35 shoulders subjected to a Latarjet operation (group B), for a large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion without significant glenoid bone loss, were retrospectively evaluated. Each group was followed up for a mean more than 2-year period.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, postoperative pain, shoulder mobility, muscle strength, Rowe score, and UCLA score revealed no significant difference between the two groups. The postoperative mean deficit in external rotation at the side (ERs) was 8° ± 23° in group A (P = 0.044). In group B, the mean deficits in ERs, external rotation at 90° of abduction, and internal rotation to the posterior were 10° ± 20°, 7° ± 16°, and 1.9° ± 4°, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.022, and 0.009, respectively). The recurrence rate was 5.4 % (two shoulders) in group A and 5.7 % (two shoulders) in group B (n.s.). The overall complication rate was significantly higher in group B (14.3 %) than in group A (0 %) (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

For recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, both arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure were safe and reliable techniques with a low recurrence rate. However, the Latarjet group had a significantly higher postoperative complication rate than the remplissage group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

What Is the Critical Value of Glenoid Bone Loss at Which Soft Tissue Bankart Repair Does Not Restore Glenohumeral Translation, Restricts Range of Motion, and Leads to Abnormal Humeral Head Position?

BACKGROUND

A general consensus has been formed that glenoid bone loss greater than 20% to 25% is the critical amount at which bony augmentation procedures are needed; however, recent clinical results suggest that the critical levels must be reconsidered to lower values.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to find the critical value of anterior glenoid bone loss when a soft tissue repair is not adequate to restore anterior-inferior glenohumeral translation, rotational range of motion, or humeral head position using a biomechanical anterior shoulder instability model.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested with a customized shoulder testing system. Range of motion, translation, and humeral head position were measured at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the scapular plane under a total of 40-N rotator cuff muscle loading in the following 11 conditions: intact; soft tissue Bankart lesion and repair; Bankart lesion with 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25% glenoid bone defects based on the largest anteroposterior width of the glenoid; and soft tissue Bankart repair for each respective glenoid defect. Serial osteotomies for each percentage of bone loss were made parallel to the long axis of the glenoid.

RESULTS

There was significantly decreased external rotation (121.2° ± 2.8° to 113.5° ± 3.3°; P = .004), increased anteroinferior translation with an externally applied load (3.0 ± 1.2 mm to 7.5 ± 1.1 mm at 20 N; P = .008), and increased posterior (0.2 ± 0.6 mm to 2.7 ± 0.8 mm; P = .049) and inferior shift (2.9 ± 0.7 mm to 6.6 ± 1.1 mm; P = .018) of the humeral head apex in the position of maximum external rotation after soft tissue Bankart repair of a 15% glenoid defect compared with the repair of a Bankart lesion without a glenoid defect, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid defects of 15% or more of the largest anteroposterior glenoid width should be considered the critical bone loss amount at which soft tissue repair cannot restore glenohumeral translation, restricts rotational range of motion, and leads to abnormal humeral head position.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The critical level of anterior glenoid bone loss at which bony restorations should be considered is closer to 15% of the largest anteroposterior width of glenoid for defects perpendicular to the superoinferior glenoid axis, which is lower than the commonly accepted threshold of 20% to 25%.

Effect of arthroscopic techniques on joint volume in shoulder instability: Bankart repair versus capsular shift

PURPOSE

The evaluation of glenohumeral joint volume in both unstable (with/without laxity) and stable shoulders (subacromial impingement) and volume reduction potential of arthroscopic techniques: (labral anchor repair vs. capsular shift).

METHODS

Material was based on 133 patients: anterior shoulder instability without laxity (group I, n = 49), with laxity (group II, n = 22) and subacromial impingement (control group, n = 62) operated in 2010-2011. Group I received arthroscopic Bankart repair, group; II - arthroscopic anterior capsular plication, control group - subacromial decompression. Joint volume was measured by fluid aspiration into the syringe via arthroscope, before and after procedure. Then volume reduction potential was calculated.

RESULTS

The following average values of initial joint volume were recorded: group I - 26.8 ml group II - 43.7 ml and the control group - 25.6 ml with significant differences: impingement vs. instability + laxity (p < 0.00001), impingement vs. instability without laxity (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups I and II. Joint volume was significantly reduced after labral repair (by average of 37 %, 13.8 ml, p < 0.0001). Capsular shift led to an even greater and more significant volume decrease (61 %, 26.7 ml, p < 0.001). Joint volume in the control group was reduced only by 11 %, 3.8 ml (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with unstable shoulders have enlarged joint volume as compared to patients with subacromial impingement. Arthroscopic techniques lead to a significant joint volume reduction, with the most powerful effect for capsular shift. Level of Evidence - Level 2.

A multicenter study to evaluate subscapularis muscle function using 5:30 o'clock portal for antero-inferior shoulder stabilization

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome after arthroscopic antero-inferior shoulder stabilization with and without using a 5:30 o'clock portal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients [age (mean ± SD), 28.05 ± 8.25 years] with a mean follow-up of 15.23 ± 5.02 months were included in this study. Thirty-one patients underwent arthroscopic antero-inferior shoulder stabilization using the 5:30 o'clock portal in center A (group I) and were compared to 31 matched patients managed with the 3 o'clock portal in center B (group II). Physical examination, standard shoulder scores, ultrasound assessment and subscapularis strength measurement were used to evaluate postoperative shoulder function.

RESULTS

Good to excellent results were seen in both groups. No significant differences were seen when comparing ASES, Constant and Rowe Score of both groups. Patients of group II achieved a significant higher score in the SST than patients of group I. (p < 0.05) Patients of group I had a significantly lesser loss of passive external rotation in 0° and 90° of abduction. (p = 0.04; p = 0.056) Ultrasound evaluation and strength measurement showed no significant differences in subscapularis muscle integrity or function neither between the involved and uninvolved shoulder nor between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic anterior-inferior shoulder stabilization results in excellent clinical results. When considering portal placement, the deep trans-subscapularis portal allows a more precise suture anchor placement at the inferior glenoid rim and capsular shift with a significant improved external rotation but does not negatively affect the subscapularis function in terms of internal rotation strength or structural integrity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Anterior Shoulder Instability with Concomitant Superior Labrum from Anterior to Posterior (SLAP) Lesion Compared to Anterior Instability without SLAP Lesion

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with combined anterior instability and superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions, and to analyze the effect of concomitant SLAP repair on surgical outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability between January 2004 and March 2013. A total of 120 patients were available for at least 1-year follow-up. Forty-four patients with reparable concomitant detached SLAP lesions (group I) underwent combined SLAP and anterior stabilization, and 76 patients without SLAP lesions (group II) underwent anterior stabilization alone. Patient characteristics, preoperative and postoperative pain scores, Rowe scores, and shoulder ranges of motion were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Patients in group I had higher incidences of high-energy trauma (p = 0.03), worse preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) (p = 0.02), and Rowe scores (p = 0.04). The postoperative pain VAS and Rowe scores improved equally in both groups without significant differences. Limitation in postoperative range of motion was similar between the groups (all p-value > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior instability with SLAP lesion may not be related to frequent episodes of dislocation but rather to a high-energy trauma. SLAP fixation with anterior stabilization procedures did not lead to poor functional outcomes if appropriate surgical techniques were followed.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair: Have we finally reached a gold standard?

Traditionally, surgical stabilization of the unstable shoulder has been performed through an open incision. Arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors is now widely considered the treatment of choice for anterior shoulder instability in patients who have failed conservative management. Many different factors have now been elucidated for adequate treatment of glenohumeral instability. Because of technical advances in instability repair combined with an increased understanding of factors that lead to recurrent instability, the outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have significantly improved and approach those of open techniques.

Bipolar bone defect in the shoulder anterior dislocation

In the anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss among 25 % or more of the inferior glenoid diameter (inverted-pear glenoid), the consensus of recent authors is that glenoid bone grafting (Latarjet procedure) should be performed. The engaging Hill-Sachs lesion has been recognized as a risk factor for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. We have developed a method using radiographic and arthroscopic studies and the concept of the glenoid track to determine whether a Hill-Sachs lesion will engage the anterior glenoid rim, whether or not there is concomitant anterior glenoid bone loss. If the Hill-Sachs lesion engages, it is called an "off-track" Hill-Sachs lesion; if it does not engage, it is an "on-track" lesion. On the basis of our quantitative method, we have developed a treatment paradigm with specific surgical criteria for all patients with anterior shoulder instability (first dislocation or recurrent dislocation), both with and without bipolar bone loss.

Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of Traditional Bankart Repair With Bone Tunnels and Bankart Repair Utilizing Suture Anchors

Background:

Traditional Bankart repair using bone tunnels has a reported failure rate between 0% and 5% in long-term studies. Arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors has become more popular; however, reported failure rates have been cited between 4% and 18%. There have been no satisfactory explanations for the differences in these outcomes.

Hypothesis:

Bone tunnels will provide increased coverage of the native labral footprint and demonstrate greater load to failure and stiffness and decreased cyclic displacement in biomechanical testing.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

Twenty-two fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were used. For footprint analysis, the labral footprint area was marked and measured using a Microscribe technique in 6 specimens. A 3-suture anchor repair was performed, and the area of the uncovered footprint was measured. This was repeated with traditional bone tunnel repair. For the biomechanical analysis, 8 paired specimens were randomly assigned to bone tunnel or suture anchor repair with the contralateral specimen assigned to the other technique. Each specimen underwent cyclic loading (5-25 N, 1 Hz, 100 cycles) and load to failure (15 mm/min). Displacement was measured using a digitized video recording system.

Results:

Bankart repair with bone tunnels provided significantly more coverage of the native labral footprint than repair with suture anchors (100% vs 27%, P < .001). Repair with bone tunnels (21.9 ± 8.7 N/mm) showed significantly greater stiffness than suture anchor repair (17.1 ± 3.5 N/mm, P = .032). Mean load to failure and gap formation after cyclic loading were not statistically different between bone tunnel (259 ± 76.8 N, 0.209 ± 0.064 mm) and suture anchor repairs (221.5 ± 59.0 N [P = .071], 0.161 ± 0.51 mm [P = .100]).

Conclusion:

Bankart repair with bone tunnels completely covered the footprint anatomy while suture anchor repair covered less than 30% of the native footprint. Repair using bone tunnels resulted in significantly greater stiffness than repair with suture anchors. Load to failure and gap formation were not significantly different.

Incapacity of work after arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The incapacity with respect to work following anterior-inferior shoulder dislocation and subsequent Bankart repair has not been previously examined. The objective of this study was to examine a patient's incapacity according to the classification by the REFA Association. The recovery time was measured and the outcome of patients with heavy workload was compared to those with lower workloads.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 74 patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The Constant-Murley Score, UCLA Shoulder Score and ROWE Score for Shoulder Instability were recorded for clinical assessment. The mean follow-up time was 43.1 months (SD ± 17.4; 24-110 months) with a mean age of 34.7 years (SD ± 12.6). Workload was classified as per the REFA Association classification system. Postoperative duration of a patient's incapacity with respect to work and other subjective ratings were provided by the patients themselves.

RESULTS

The mean incapacity of work was 2.73 months (95 % CI 1.19-5.36). The incapacity of work was 2.06 months (95 % CI 1.55-2.68) in the group with low physical strains at work (REFA 0-1) and 3.40 months (95 % CI 2.70-4.24) in the group with heavy workload (REFA 2-4/p = 0.005). Overall, the mean Constant-Murley Score was 87.7 (SD ± 13.5). The average UCLA Shoulder Score summed up to 31.9 (SD ± 3.87) and the mean ROWE Score was 87.6 (SD ± 21.7). 13 (17.5 %) patients had problems to compete in their jobs. Three patients had to change the job postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, a relationship between the time of incapacity of work and the workload was observed; patients with low physical strains returned significantly earlier to work after arthroscopic Bankart repair (p = 0.005). In general, the clinical results as measured in the Constant/UCLA/Rowe score were comparable to other studies.

A Qualitative Investigation of Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Beyond Stability

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization is known to have excellent functional results, but many patients do not return to their preinjury level of sport, with return to play rates reported between 48% and 100% despite good outcome scores.

PURPOSE

To understand specific subjective psychosocial factors influencing a patient's decision to return to sport after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients aged 18 to 40 years who had undergone primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. All patients participated in sport before surgery without any further revision operations or shoulder injuries. Qualitative data analysis was performed in accordance with the Strauss and Corbin theory to derive codes, categories, and themes. Preinjury and current sport participation was defined by type, level of competition, and the Brophy/Marx shoulder activity score. Patient-reported pain and shoulder function were also obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were interviewed, revealing that fear of reinjury, shifts in priority, mood, social support, and self-motivation were found to greatly influence the decision to return to sport both in patients who had and had not returned to their preinjury level of play. Patients also described fear of sporting incompetence, self-awareness issues, recommendations from physical therapists, and degree of confidence as less common considerations affecting their return to sport.

CONCLUSION

In spite of excellent functional outcomes, extrinsic and intrinsic factors such as competing interests, kinesiophobia, age, and internal stressors and motivators can have a major effect on a patient's decision to return to sport after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. The qualitative methods used in this study provide a unique patient-derived perspective into postoperative recovery and highlight the necessity to recognize and address subjective and psychosocial factors rather than objective functional outcome scores alone as contributing to a patient's decision to return to play.