Glenoid rim fracture through anchor points after arthroscopic Bankart repair for shoulder instability

Clinical and radiological outcome of all-suture anchors in shoulder and elbow surgery

Background

All-suture anchors (ASAs) are noted to cause various bone reactions when used in upper limb surgery but clinical implications are unknown.

Methods

88 shoulders and 151 elbows with a mean follow-up of 47.1 ± 17.7 months were invited for follow-up including clinical examination, questionnaires and radiographs. The anchor drill holes were radiographically assessed.

Results

At final follow up, mean DASH was 12.9 ± 13.8 and mean VAS 2.2 ± 2.4 in the shoulder population. In the elbow group mean MEPS was 91.8 ± 12.7 and mean VAS 1.5 ± 1.9. Implant-specific complications were seen in 10 elbow cases but none in the shoulder group. The mean diameter of the 1.4 mm all-suture anchor drill hole was enlarged to 2.5 ± 1.4 mm in the shoulder group and to 2.9 ± 1.0 mm in the elbow group. 50% of the 1.4 mm anchor drill holes showed abnormal morphology but these morphologic changes did not correlate with clinical outcome, complications or reoperation rate.

Discussion

Satisfying clinical outcomes are found in upper limb surgery using ASAs. Various bone changes are seen after implantation of an ASA, but these are not clinically relevant. Long-term consecutive follow-up data is required.

Does the immediate repair of Bankart lesion following first dislocation reduce the chances of recurrence after arthroscopic repair in soldiers?

PURPOSE

The study attempted to compare the effects of immediate and delayed arthroscopic Bankart repair on the shoulder dislocation recurrence.

METHODS

In total, 465 soldiers with first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included in the study. Of the total, 285 soldiers underwent a quick arthroscopic Bankart repair procedure, whether 180 soldiers underwent a delayed repair procedure. The initial dislocation was traumatic in both groups and operated using the standard arthroscopic suture anchor repair technique. Patient's age, repair time since the first dislocation, number of dislocations before surgery, number of suture anchors used during the repair, duration of surgical procedure, duration from surgery to return to work, and recurrence of dislocation after surgery were recorded. Rowe score, Constant score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were used for clinical assessment.

RESULTS

The operating time and recurrence rate were higher in the group subjected to delayed repair procedure than in the group subjected to immediate repair procedure. Repair timing was found to be crucial for a successful outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that Bankart repair must be performed immediately to minimize recurrence and other degenerative changes, which may require an additional surgical procedure for satisfactory repair. More studies are required to reach a definitive conclusion.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with all-suture anchors does not cause important glenoid bone osteolysis: a volumetric CT study of 143 anchors

PURPOSE

To evaluate with computed tomography (CT) the incidence of anchor-related osteolysis after implantation of two types of all-suture anchors for the management of labral lesions in shoulder instability.

METHODS

Single-cohort, observational study with 12-month follow-up. Thirty-three participants (27 males/6 females; age 38.3 years [SD 11.3]) with anterior labral lesions in which 143 all-suture anchors (71 Iconix 1.4 mm and 72 Suturefix 1.7 mm) were implanted were evaluated with a CT performed a mean of 15.4 [3.85] months after surgery. The volume of the bone defects was measured in the CT. Every anchor was classified into one of four groups: (1) no bone defect. (2) Partial bone defect (defects smaller than the drill used for anchor placement). (3) Tunnel enlargement (defects larger than the drill volume but smaller than twice that volume). (4) Cystic lesion (defects larger than twice the drill volume).

RESULTS

No bone defect was identified in 16 anchors (11.2%, [95% CI 6.5-17.5%]). A partial bone defect was found in 84 anchors (58.7% [50.2-66.9%]). Tunnel enlargement was found in 43 anchors (30.11% [22.6-37.6%]). No anchor caused cystic lesions (0% [0-2.5%]). The defect volume was a mean of 27.8 mm³ (SD 18.4 mm³, minimum 0 mm³, maximum 94 mm³). Neither the position in the glenoid nor the type of implant used had a significant effect in the type or size of the defects.

CONCLUSION

When using all-suture anchors in the glenoid during instability surgery, relevant bone osteolytic defects are rare at 1-year follow-up. Most anchor insertion tunnels will fill completely (11%) or partially (59%) with bone. Tunnel enlargement will develop in 30% of anchors. No cystic defects larger than 0.125 cm³ were observed. There is a low risk that all-suture anchors cause significant osteolytic bone defects in the glenoid. These implants can be used safely. Level of evidence IV.

Serial Changes in Perianchor Cysts Following Arthroscopic Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors

Backgroud

Changes in perianchor cysts around the all-suture anchors, which demonstrate distinguished features from the biocomposite anchors, have not been revealed sufficiently. The purpose of this study was to investigate serial changes of perianchor cysts according to the location of the inserted anchor in the glenoid in arthroscopic labral repair using all-suture anchors.

Methods

We enrolled 43 patients who underwent computed tomography (CT) immediately postoperatively and CT arthrogram (CTA) at 1 year or 2 years after arthroscopic labral repair using a 1.3-mm all-suture anchor for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with or without a superior labral tear from anterior to posterior and a posterior labral tear. The mean diameter and tissue density (HU) of perianchor cysts were measured depending on the location in the glenoid. Clinical outcomes, labral healing, and redislocation rate were evaluated at 2 years after surgery.

Results

On functional assessment, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Rowe score improved statistically significantly after surgery (from 47.9 ± 14.3 preoperatively to 90.1 ± 9.6 postoperatively and from 45.3 ± 12.4 preoperatively to 92.2 ± 10.1 postoperatively, respectively; p < 0.01). Postoperative redislocations were found in 2 patients (4.7%). In radiological evaluation, the mean diameter of perianchor cysts at postoperative 1 year (3.24 ± 0.65 mm) was significantly larger than the immediate postoperative diameter; however, there was no significant difference between postoperative 1 year and 2 years (3.23 ± 0.57 mm). Tissue density at the center of cysts demonstrated no significant difference between 1 and 2 year postoperatively (107.7 ± 29.8 HU [superior], 99.7 ± 31.7 HU [anteroinferior], and 105.1 ± 25.0 HU [posterior] vs. 109.1 ± 26.1 HU [superior], 106.4 ± 30.3 HU [anteroinferior], and 111.0 ± 32.9 HU [posterior]). The mean diameter of perianchor cysts in the anteroinferior position was largest compared with that in superior or posterior positions.

Conclusions

Perianchor cysts associated with all-suture anchors enlarged significantly within 1 year after arthroscopic labral repair regardless of the insertion location in the glenoid. However, the size and tissue density of perianchor cysts were similar at postoperative 1 and 2 years, and satisfactory stability and clinical outcomes were obtained.

Peri-anchor cyst formation after arthroscopic bankart repair: comparison between biocomposite suture anchor and all-suture anchor

Background

The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcomes and radiological findings of cyst formation in the glenoid around suture anchors after arthroscopic Bankart repair with either biocomposite suture anchor or all-suture anchor in traumatic anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two suture materials.

Methods

This retrospective study reviewed 162 patients (69 in group A, biocomposite anchor; 93 in group B, all-suture anchor) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with less than 20% glenoid defect on preoperative en-face view three-dimensional computed tomography. Patient assignment was not randomized.

Results

At final follow-up, the mean subjective shoulder value, Rowe score, and University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score improved significantly in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in functional shoulder scores and recurrence rate (6%, 4/69 in group A; 5%, 5/93 in group B) between the two groups. On follow-up magnetic resonance arthrography/computed tomography arthrography, the incidence of peri-anchor cyst formation was 5.7% (4/69) in group A and 3.2% (3/93) in group B, which was not a significant difference.

Conclusions

Considering the low incidence of peri-anchor cyst formation in the glenoid after Bankart repair with one of two anchor systems and the lack of association with recurrence instability, biocomposite and all-suture anchors in Bankart repair yield satisfactory outcomes with no significant difference.

Does anchor insertion angle or placement of the suture anchor affect glenoid rim fracture occurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair?

BACKGROUND

The purposes were to compare the characteristics of 2 groups of patients who underwent revision Bankart repair with and without glenoid rim fractures and to examine risk factors for glenoid rim fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients who needed revision surgery after arthroscopic Bankart repair and identified 19 patients with and 20 patients without glenoid rim fractures. The insertion angle of the suture anchor, anchor position on the glenoid, and demographic data were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean anchor insertion angles in the glenoid fracture group (group F) at the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-o'clock positions were 64°, 58°, 55°, and 55°, respectively; those in the no-fracture group (group R) were 60°, 63°, 60°, and 55°, respectively (P = .630, P = .207, P = .166, and P = .976, respectively). At the 5-o'clock position, anchors were fixed to the glenoid face in 13 cases in group F and in 3 cases in group R (P = .040). Although age (P = .529) and sex (P = 1.0) did not differ between the groups, elite and professional athletes had a significantly higher incidence of glenoid rim fractures (P = .009).

CONCLUSION

The anchor insertion angle did not affect glenoid rim fracture occurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, the placement of the suture anchor at the 5-o'clock position on the glenoid face could increase the risk of glenoid rim fracture after trauma. Athletes were more likely to have glenoid rim fractures owing to major trauma after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Anchor Hole Placement for Bankart Repairs and Its Interaction With Variable Size Hill–Sachs Defects-Minimizing Risk of Glenoid Rim Fractures

As the use of glenoid suture anchors in arthroscopic and open reconstruction, for instability after Bankart lesions of the shoulder, increases, an emerging problem has been the incidence of glenoid rim fractures through suture drill holes. Very little is known regarding the effect of the Hill–Sachs lesion on the glenoid's susceptibility to fracture and how drill hole location can further affect this. This study used finite element modeling techniques to investigate the risk of fracture of the glenoid rim in relation to variable sized Hill–Sachs defects impacting on the anterior glenoid edge with suture anchor holes placed in varying positions. The distribution of Von Mises (VM) stresses and the factor of safety (FOS) for each of the configurations were calculated. The greatest peak in VM stresses was generated when the glenoid was loaded with a small Hill–Sachs lesion. The VM stresses were lessened and the FOS increased (reducing likelihood of failure) with increasing size of the Hill–Sachs lesion. Placement of the suture drill holes at 2 mm from the glenoid rim showed the highest risk of failure; and when combined with a medium sized Hill–Sachs lesion, which matched the central line of the drill holes, a potentially clinically significant configuration was presented. The results of this study are useful in assisting the surgeon in understanding the interaction between the Hill–Sachs lesion size and the placement of suture anchors with the purpose of minimizing the risk of subsequent rim fracture with new injury.

"Postage Stamp" Fractures: A Systematic Review of Patient and Suture Anchor Profiles Causing Anterior Glenoid Rim Fractures After Bankart Repair

PURPOSE

To systematically review patient and technical risk factors for anterior glenoid rim fractures through suture anchor points (i.e. "postage stamp") after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

An independent, duplicate search of Embase, Medline, and Web of Science databases, in addition to the past 5-year annual meeting abstracts of several prominent shoulder meetings, was conducted according to R-AMSTAR and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify English-language studies reporting this complication.

RESULTS

A screen of 2,833 studies yielded 6 for inclusion herein. Data across 43 patients, aged 14 to 61 years (mean 24.4), 5% female, and who were followed for 4 to 108 months postoperatively, were reviewed. Only 1 of 6 studies (n = 2) reported postage stamp fracture in female patients. Median time from initial surgery to fracture ranged from 12 to 24 months. Five of 6 studies (n = 32) reported a median age at initial surgery of 25 years or younger (range 17-35). Four of 6 studies (n = 30) reported fracture mostly after sport involvement. All studies (n = 35) reported initial fixation with a median of 3 anchors or more, 3 of 5 studies (n = 26) reported fracture entirely after conventional knot-tying anchors, and 5 of 6 studies (n = 24) reported more fractures after absorbable suture anchor use. Fractures occurred entirely through anchor holes in 5 of 6 studies (n = 29) and mostly after osteolysis in 3 of 4 studies (n = 19). Management strategies after fracture included revision arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Bristow/Latarjet procedures.

CONCLUSION

Postage stamp fractures were reported frequently in patients who were male, age 25 years or younger, and participants in sporting activities and in fractures initially stabilized with 3 or more anchors or conventional knot-tying anchors or that experienced osteolysis around anchor sites.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.

Editorial Commentary: Is Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using Suture Anchors on the Glenoid Appropriate Treatment for Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability?

Fracture of the anterior glenoid rim along the sites of suture anchor insertion is not rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. In addition to the influence of the number, type, and size of the suture anchors, placing multiple anchors in a linear arrangement might impose excessive stress on the surrounding bone, leading to critical loss of osseous integrity and glenoid fracture. Although highly active young male collision or contact athletes are most at risk, such fractures sometimes occur after relatively minor trauma at a long interval after surgery, suggesting persistent impairment of bone quality. In patients with postoperative recurrence of instability, detailed examination using computed tomography is recommended.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Computed Tomography Analysis for Tunnel Diameter After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With the All-Suture Anchor and the Biodegradable Suture Anchor

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes and radiological findings at the anchor site after arthroscopic Bankart repair with all-suture anchors and biodegradable suture anchors in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair were divided into 2 groups depending on the type of the suture anchor used in different periods. Power analysis was designed based on the postoperative Rowe score. Clinical outcomes, including the Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, subjective instability, and redislocation rates were evaluated. In all patients enrolled, the tunnel diameter of the anchor was assessed with computed tomography arthrogram at 1 year postoperatively. The Institutional Review Board of Ewha Womans University approved this study (no. EUMC 2017-05-058).

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients were enrolled: 33 underwent surgery with a 1.3-mm (single-loaded) or 1.8-mm (double-loaded) all-suture anchor (group A), and 34 underwent surgery with a 3.0-mm biodegradable anchor (10.8 mm in length, 30% 1,2,3-trichloropropane/70% poly-lactide-co-glycolic acid) (group B). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups A and B in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (preoperatively, 51.2 ± 13.7 vs 47.7 ± 12.2; 2 years postoperatively, 88.5 ± 12.3 vs 89.7 ± 10.9; P = .667) and Rowe score (preoperatively, 41.4 ± 10.5 vs 41.3 ± 9.4; 2 years postoperatively, 87.9 ± 14.9 vs 88.5 ± 14.6; P = .857). Postoperative redislocation (6.1% vs 5.9%, P = .682) and subjective instability rate (12.2% vs 17.7%, P = .386) of both groups showed no significant difference. Average tunnel diameter increment was significantly greater with the 1.8-mm all-suture anchor (2.8 ± 0.9 mm) than the 1.3-mm all-suture anchor (1.2 ± 0.8 mm) and 3.0-mm biodegradable anchor (0.8 ± 1.2 mm) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with the all-suture anchor showed comparable clinical outcomes and postoperative stability as the conventional biodegradable suture anchor at 2 years after surgery. Tunnel diameter increment of the all-suture anchor was significantly greater than that of the biodegradable suture anchor at the 1-year computed tomography analysis. Although tunnel diameter increment was greater with the all-suture anchor, it did not influence the clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Comparison of Curved and Straight Anchor Insertion for Bankart Repair

The quality of Bankart repair may be compromised by the presence of glenoid perforation during suture anchor placement. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of glenoid perforation and biomechanical strength of antero-inferior suture anchors placed with a curved vs a traditional straight technique through an anteroinferior portal. Ten bilateral pairs of fresh human cadaveric shoulders were randomized to either a curved or a straight suture anchor insertion technique. An anteroinferior portal was used to place a 1.5-mm soft anchor in the anteroinferior glenoid (5:30 position for right shoulders). Anatomic dissection was performed, and the maximum load of each anchor was measured using a materials testing system. The overall rate of glenoid perforation by the anteroinferior anchor was 50%. The rate of glenoid perforation was 40% in the straight group and 60% in the curved group (P=.41). The median maximum load was 86 N in the straight group and 137 N in the curved group (P=.23). The median maximum load of the anchors that did perforate the glenoid was 102 N and of those that did not was 118 N (P=.72). The mode of failure was suture anchor pullout in all except one specimen. The curved guide was not superior to the traditional straight guide in terms of the rate of glenoid perforation or the maximum load of the suture anchors. Anterior cortical perforation of the glenoid during anteroinferior suture anchor placement is common with both techniques. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(2):e242-e246.].

Postoperative Recurrence of Instability Due to New Anterior Glenoid Rim Fractures After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) sometimes reveals a new fracture of the anterior glenoid rim in patients with postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors, but there have been few previous reports about such fractures.

HYPOTHESIS

The placement of a large number of suture anchors during arthroscopic Bankart repair might be associated with a new glenoid rim fracture.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Screw-in metal suture anchors were used until June 2011 and suture-based soft anchors from July 2011. A follow-up of at least 2 years was conducted for 128 shoulders treated using metal anchors (metal anchor group) and 129 shoulders treated using soft anchors (soft anchor group). The frequency and features of new glenoid rim fractures were investigated, and the influence of the number of suture anchors and other factors on fractures was also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 19 shoulders (14.8%) with postoperative recurrence in the metal anchor group and 23 shoulders (17.8%) in the soft anchor group. Among 37 shoulders evaluated by CT at recurrence, a new glenoid rim fracture was detected in 13 shoulders (35.1%; 5 shoulders in the metal anchor group and 8 shoulders in the soft anchor group). A fracture at the anchor insertion site was recognized in 4 shoulders from the metal anchor group and 6 shoulders from the soft anchor group, although linear fractures connecting several anchor holes were only seen in the soft anchor group. While new glenoid fractures occurred regardless of the number of suture anchors used, new fractures were significantly more frequent in teenagers at surgery and in junior high school or high school athletes. Such fractures did not only occur in contact athletes but were also found in overhead athletes.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative recurrence of instability associated with a new glenoid rim fracture along the suture anchor insertion site was frequent after arthroscopic Bankart repair. These fractures might be related to placing multiple soft suture anchors in a linear arrangement.

Recovery of Shoulder Rotational Muscle Strength After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background:

Shoulder rotational muscles act as dynamic stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint, and the recovery of muscle strength plays an important role in stabilizing the joint during postoperative rehabilitation. However, temporal changes in muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair have not been clarified.

Purpose:

To better understand the temporal recovery of shoulder rotational muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Isokinetic concentric shoulder rotational muscle strength was evaluated in 50 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent dislocations of the glenohumeral joint and treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Results:

The mean peak torque/weight and total work were reduced significantly at 1.5 months after surgery (P < .0001) and returned to preoperative levels by 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation. The contralateral peak torque ratios reached preoperative levels by 6 months after surgery. The ipsilateral peak torque ratios were reduced between 1.5 and 3 months after surgery and returned to preoperative levels at 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation.

Conclusion:

Isokinetic shoulder rotational muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair recovered to preoperative levels by 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation.