Arthroscopic double-loaded single-row repair in chronic traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation

Repair integrity and functional outcomes of arthroscopic repair in chronic anterior shoulder instability: single-loaded versus double-loaded single-row repair

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the clinical outcome and repair integrity of single-loaded and double-loaded single-row arthroscopic repair of chronic anterior shoulder instability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty consecutive chronic anterior shoulder instability cases treated by arthroscopic labral repair were included. A single-loaded single-row technique was used in the first 25 consecutive shoulders, and a double-loaded single-row technique was used in the next 25 consecutive shoulders. The number of suture anchors was 4 in the shoulders that underwent single-loaded repair and 3 in the shoulders that underwent double-loaded repair. 42 shoulders (84.0%) followed up clinical outcomes were evaluated a minimum 2 years (mean 28.5 months; range 24-46) postoperatively. The postoperative labral repair integrity was evaluated by MDCT-arthrogram at a minimum 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, the average UCLA, ASES, Constant, Rowe score, VAS pain score, and VAS for instability scores improved significantly, to 33.05, 92.33, 89.05, 94.86, 0.90 and 0.52, respectively, in the single-loaded group and to 32.19, 90.10, 89.05, 94.52, 0.90, and 0.86, respectively, in the double-loaded group. The clinical scores improved in both groups postoperatively (all P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at final follow-up (P = 0.414, 0.508, 1.000, 0.917, 1.000, and 0.470, respectively). The re-tear rate was 2 (9.5%) in the shoulders that underwent single-loaded repair and 3 (14.3%) in the shoulders that underwent double-loaded repair; this difference was statistically not significant (P = 0.634).

CONCLUSION

The double-loaded single-row technique resulted in comparable clinical outcomes, and re-tear rate compared with the single-loaded single-row technique in chronic anterior shoulder instability at short-term follow-up. Number of used suture anchor in double-loaded single-row technique was fewer than that of single-loaded single-row technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Comparative retrospective study, level III.

Recurrent Instability after Arthroscopic Glenoid Labral Repair with a Minimum of Three Points of Fixation: Do the Number of Anchors or Fixation Points Correlate to Outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rate of instability following arthroscopic Bankart repairs in regard to the number and types of fixation utilized. A Bankart lesion is a tear in the anteroinferior capsulolabral complex within the shoulder, occurring in association with an anterior shoulder dislocation. These injuries can result in glenoid bone loss, decreased range of motion, and recurrent shoulder instability. Successful repair of these lesions has been reported in the literature with repair constructs that have three points of fixation. However, the definition of "one point of fixation" is yet to be fully elucidated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of arthroscopically repaired Bankart lesions were evaluated pertaining to the points of fixation required to achieve shoulder stability. This included the number, position, and types of anchors used. Patients consented to complete a series of surveys at a minimum of two years postoperatively. The primary outcome was to determine recurrent instability via the UCLA Shoulder Score, the ROWE Shoulder Instability Score, and the Oxford Shoulder Score. A secondary outcome included pain on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

There were 116 patients reviewed, 46 patients achieved three points of fixation in their surgical repair via two anchors and 70 patients achieved a similar fixation with three or more anchors. There was no significant difference in the mean age, gender, or body mass index (BMI). Patients receiving two anchors demonstrated recurrent instability 8.7% of the time (4 of 46 patients). Patients who received three or more anchors demonstrated recurrent instability 8.6% of the time (6 of 70 patients). Overall, there was no statistical significance between the number/types of anchors used. Between the two cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference found between VAS, ROWE, UCLA, and Oxford Scores. There was a significant difference in pain reported on the VAS scale with an average VAS score of 0.43 versus 2.5 in those without and with recurrent instability respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contention still exists surrounding the exact definition of "a point of fixation" in arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Three-point constructs can be created through a variety of combinations including anchors and sutures, ultimately achieving the goal of a stable shoulder.

A comparative study on use of two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair

Objectives

This study aims to compare clinical results of repair using two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Patients and methods

Between July 2012 and December 2017, a total of 40 patients (38 males, 2 females; mean age: 31.6±8.1; range: 17 to 47 years) who underwent Bankart arthroscopic surgery and were followed for minimum two years were retrospectively analyzed. Group 1 (n=17) underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with two double-loaded suture anchors, while Group 2 (n=23) underwent repair with three double-loaded suture anchors. Clinical outcomes of the patients and recurrences were compared.

Results

At the final postoperative follow-up, a significant improvement was observed in the functional outcomes in all patients. No statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05) in the mean clinical scores of the Constant Shoulder Score between Group 1 (94.2±7.8) and Group 2 (95.4±4.1). There was no significant difference in the mean Rowe scores (Group 1: 95.6±4.6 vs. Group 2: 96.3±3.8, respectively) and external rotation loss (at neutral Group 1: 1.9o vs. Group 2: 2.2o, respectively). Three of our patients had recurrent dislocation during a major traumatic event (n=2 in Group 1 and n=1 in Group 2).

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that stability is not correlated with the use of either two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repairs.

Double-loaded suture anchors in the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair for anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with the use of double-loaded suture anchors.

Methods

This study evaluated a series of consecutive patients treated after the senior author changed from single- to double-loaded suture anchors for the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. We collected the following outcomes at final follow-up: visual analog scale pain score, Simple Shoulder Test score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and instability recurrence data.

Results

A total of 41 consecutive patients underwent arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors, of whom 30 (71%) were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. These patients included 4 contact or collision athletes (13%). The patients had an average of 12 ± 13 prior dislocations over an average period of 56 ± 57 months preoperatively. Mean glenoid bone loss measured 16% ± 10%, and 67% (18 of 27 patients) had glenoid bone loss ≥ 13.5%. Intraoperatively, 3.2 ± 0.4 anchors were used. No posterior repairs or remplissage procedures were performed. At an average of 6.7 ± 2.7 years' follow-up, the visual analog scale pain score was 0.8 ± 1.4; Simple Shoulder Test score, 11 ± 2; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 90 ± 14. Patients with bone loss < 13.5% had a 0% redislocation rate and 11% subluxation rate, whereas those with bone loss ≥ 13.5% had a 6% reoperation rate, 22% redislocation rate, and 22% subluxation rate.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors provides satisfactory clinical results at early to mid-term outcome assessment when glenoid bone loss is <13.5%.

Does glenoid remodeling occur with an erosion-type bone loss after arthroscopic Bankart repair?

Introduction

Fragment-type glenoid bone loss is known to remodel after arthroscopic Bankart repair. To our knowledge, no studies have been reported about the morphologic changes of the erosion-type bone loss.

Aim

To determine the morphologic changes of erosion-type glenoid bone loss after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients (mean age: 31 years) with traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability with an erosion-type glenoid bone loss <25% underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. Pre- and postoperative bilateral computed tomography scans were performed in all patients. The width and surface area of the glenoid were measured by a software program and compared pre- and postoperatively.

Results

The recurrence rate was 7.1% (2 of 28 shoulders). The size of the bone loss was 7.2% ± 5.3% (mean ± standard deviation). The preoperative glenoid width and area were 24.9 ± 2.2 mm and 7.0 ± 0.8 cm², respectively, and the postoperative ones (2 years after surgery) were 24.7 ± 2.2 mm and 6.8 ± 0.8 cm², respectively. There were no significant differences between the pre- and postoperative glenoid width and area.

Discussion and conclusion

Unlike the fragment-type bone loss, the erosion-type bone loss <25% did not show any morphologic changes of the glenoid at least 2 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Peripheral-Track and Central-Track Hill-Sachs Lesions: A New Concept of Assessing an On-Track Lesion

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated biomechanically that 25% is a critical size defect of the glenoid. However, a recent clinical study reported that a bone loss between 13.5% and 20% (subcritical bone loss) led to impairment of quality of life but not a recurrence of instability.

PURPOSE

To clarify whether a subcritical bone loss exists in assessing a Hill-Sachs lesion via a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Fifty patients (mean age, 27 years) with <25% glenoid defect who were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent anterior dislocation were assessed at a mean follow-up of 28 months. All had an on-track Hill-Sachs lesion. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Rowe scores were used for the clinical evaluation. The Hill-Sachs interval was measured on 3-dimensional computed tomography images and divided by the glenoid track width, defined as the Hill-Sachs occupancy (in percentages). The glenoid track was divided into 4 zones based on the percentage of the Hill-Sachs occupancy: zone 1, <25%; zone 2, 25% to <50%; zone 3, 50% to <75%; and zone 4, ≥75%.

RESULTS

The recurrence rate was 6% (3 of 50 shoulders). The Rowe score significantly improved from 45.2 ± 4.7 (mean ± SD) preoperatively to 92.3 ± 6.5 at the final follow-up (P < .05). The WOSI score also significantly increased from 46.6% ± 19.3% preoperatively to 72.3% ± 21.0% at the final follow-up (P < .001). The WOSI score of patients in zone 4 (peripheral-track lesion) (n = 10) was significantly lower than those in the other zones (central-track lesion) (P = .0379). Of the 10 patients with the peripheral-track lesion, 5 had a <40% WOSI score, similar to the preoperative WOSI score (46.6%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with on-track lesions can be divided into 2 subgroups: those with the Hill-Sachs occupancy ≥75% (peripheral-track lesion) showed significantly worse WOSI score without recurrent instability events than those with the Hill-Sacks occupancy <75% (central-track lesion).

It's Not All About Redislocation: A Systematic Review of Complications After Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Surgery

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of recurrent shoulder instability has evolved in recent years to include a variety of soft tissue and bone block procedures, undertaken with either an open or arthroscopic approach. Although the utilization of such techniques has rapidly expanded, the associated risk of complications remains poorly defined. This information is vital for clinical decision making and patient counseling.

PURPOSE

To quantify the complication rate associated with all types of surgery for anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken of studies reporting complications from anterior shoulder stabilization surgery. Inclusion criteria were studies published in English between 2000 and 2017 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Complication rates for all undesirable events contributing to the patient outcome were extracted and cumulative rates calculated.

RESULTS

Out of 1942 references, 56 studies were included, totaling 4362 procedures among 4336 patients. Arthroscopic soft tissue repair had a complication rate of 1.6% (n = 2805). When repair was combined with arthroscopic remplissage, the rate was 0.5% (n = 219). Open soft tissue repair had a complication rate of 6.2% (n = 219) and open labral repair with remplissage, a rate of 2.3% (n = 79). An open bone block procedure had a complication rate of 7.2% (n = 573) and an arthroscopic bone block procedure, a rate of 13.6% (n = 163).

CONCLUSION

This large systematic review demonstrates the overall complication rates (not purely recurrence rates) in modern shoulder stabilization surgery. With the growing interest in bone block stabilization procedures, including those performed arthroscopically, surgeons should be aware of the 10-fold increase in complications for these procedures over soft tissue arthroscopic surgery and counsel their patients accordingly.

Clinical Outcomes and Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Anterior, Posterior, and Combined Shoulder Stabilization

Background:

Glenohumeral instability is a common abnormality, especially among athletes. Previous studies have evaluated outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization in patients with anterior or posterior shoulder instability but have not compared outcomes between groups.

Purpose:

To compare return-to-sport and other patient-reported outcomes in patients after primary arthroscopic anterior, posterior, and combined anterior and posterior shoulder stabilization.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients who underwent primary arthroscopic anterior, posterior, or combined anterior and posterior shoulder stabilization were contacted at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients completed a survey that consisted of return-to-sport outcomes as well as the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Sur’geons (ASES) score, and Shoulder Activity Scale.

Results:

A total of 151 patients were successfully contacted (anterior: n = 81; posterior: n = 22; combined: n = 48) at a mean follow-up of 3.6 years. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to age at the time of surgery or time to follow-up. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of WOSI (anterior: 76; posterior: 70; combined: 78; P = .28), SANE (anterior: 87; posterior: 85; combined: 87; P = .79), ASES (anterior: 88; posterior: 83; combined: 91; P = .083), or Shoulder Activity Scale (anterior: 12.0; posterior: 12.5; combined: 12.5; P = .74) scores. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the rate of return to sport (anterior: 73%; posterior: 68%; combined: 75%; P = .84).

Conclusion:

Athletes undergoing arthroscopic stabilization of anterior, posterior, or combined shoulder instability can be expected to share a similar prognosis. High patient-reported outcome scores and moderate to high rates of return to sport were achieved by all groups.

Hippocratic method for reduction of chronic locked anterior shoulder dislocations

PURPOSE

Old shoulder dislocations are usually treated by a variety of surgical approaches. Closed reduction of chronic unreduced dislocation is less widely reported. This study was to evaluate the outcome of reduction of old anterior shoulder dislocations using the Hippocratic method.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and July 2016, patients with unilateral old shoulder dislocations included 10 women and three men with an average age of 60.00 ± 2.83 years. Eight dislocations involved the right shoulder and five the left shoulder. The average delay between dislocation and treatment was 4.46 ± 0.97 weeks (ranging from 3 weeks to 6 weeks). One case also had a greater tuberosity fracture. No patients had distal nerve or artery dysfunction. The patients were all healthy prior to dislocation, i.e., no diabetes, hypertension, or heart disease, etc. Dislocations were diagnosed according to anteroposterior shoulder X‑rays. Shoulder function was assessed using the Constant-Murley score. All manual reductions were conducted under general anesthesia using the Hippocratic method.

RESULTS

All shoulder dislocations were successfully reduced with the Hippocratic method. The mean time of closed reduction was 31.46 ± 7.60 min and the mean hospitalization time was 2.77 ± 1.09 days. No neurovascular injury or humerus fractures were noted during hospitalization. The Constant-Murley scores before reduction and after reduction were 34.31 ± 7.25 and 60.92 ± 8.95, respectively. These scores were significantly higher after reduction compared with before reduction (P < 0.01). No recurrent dislocation was observed in any patients during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The closed reduction of old anterior shoulder dislocations using the Hippocratic method is not unfeasible and should be attempted in selected patients.

Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Technical Factors

PURPOSE

Recurrent instability remains of concern after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction. We evaluated various technical factors including anchor design, anchor material, number of anchors used, and interval closure on risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines. Extracted data were recorded on a standardized form. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess study quality and risk bias. Because of study heterogeneity and low levels of evidence, meta-analysis was not possible. Pooled weighted means were calculated and individual study evaluation and comparisons (qualitative analysis) were performed for systematic review.

RESULTS

Of 2097 studies identified, 26 met criteria for systematic review. Pooled weighted means revealed 11.4% versus 15% recurrent instability with 3 or more suture anchors versus fewer than 3 anchors, 10.1% versus 7.8% with absorbable versus nonabsorbable suture anchors, respectively, and 8.0% versus 9.4% with knotless versus standard anchors, respectively. Interval closure did not qualitatively decrease recurrent instability or decrease range of motion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review reveals that despite individual study, and previous systematic reviews pointing to the contrary, the composite contemporary published literature would support no difference in the risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction with rotator interval closure, differing numbers of anchors used for the repair, use of knotless versus standard anchors, or use of bioabsorbable versus nonabsorbable anchors. We recommend surgeons focus on factors that have been shown to modify the risk factors after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction, such as patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Outcome of Bankart repair in contact versus non-contact athletes

BACKGROUND

The clinical results of arthroscopic Bankart repair for contact athletes varies according to published reports. The purposes of this study were to analyze the clinical outcome of open or arthroscopic Bankart repair and to investigate the results in contact and non-contact athletes.

HYPOTHESIS

Clinical outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair is similar to that of open procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation without a large bony defect were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-one contact and 49 non-contact athletes were found with a mean follow-up of 17 months. Forty-nine shoulders underwent arthroscopic Bankart repairs; 51 shoulders had open Bankart repairs.

RESULTS

In non-contact athletes, there was a 5% (1/22 cases) recurrence rate in the open group and 4% (1/27 cases) in the arthroscopic group. In contrast, in contact athletes, there was a 10% (3/29 cases) recurrence rate in the open group and 14% (3/22 cases) in the arthroscopic group. There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between contact and non-contact athletes, although contact athletes showed two to three times a higher recurrence rate than that of non-contact athletes. The Rowe score and Constant score showed no significant difference between the two procedures and between the contact and non-contact athletes. The rate of the complete return to sports showed no significant difference between contact and non-contact athletes.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate of Bankart repair in the contact athletes was 2 times higher in the open group and 3 times higher in the arthroscopic group than in the non-contact athletes. Clinical outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair was similar to that of open procedure.

Bankart arthroscopic procedure: comparative study on use of double or single-thread anchors after a 2-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of anchors with double and single-thread loading in the single-row Bankart arthroscopic procedure.

METHODS

252 patients (258 shoulders) underwent Bankart arthroscopic surgery with evaluation after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. They underwent repairs either using anchors with single loading of a high-resistance non-absorbable braided thread (206 shoulders; group AS) or using double loading of thread with the same characteristics (52 shoulders; group AD). The patients were evaluated using the UCLA and Carter-Rowe scales. The patients' return to sports activity and recurrences were also compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the surgical failure rate (group AS 5.8%; group AD 7.7%; p = 0.62). Group AS presented a better mean Carter-Rowe score (group AS 94.4; group AD 88.6; p < 0.05) and greater return to the same sports level (group AS 79.1; group AD 72.1; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Use of anchors with double thread loading did not show any clinical advantage for arthroscopic repair of traumatic anterior shoulder instability, in relation to use of single-thread anchors, over a 2-year follow-up.

The arthroscopic treatment of shoulder instability: bioabsorbable and standard metallic anchors produce equivalent clinical results

PURPOSE

To investigate whether there are any differences in clinical outcomes and complications between absorbable and nonabsorbable suture anchors in the treatment of shoulder instability.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from inception of the databases, using various combinations of keywords. Only studies focusing on clinical outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder stabilization with suture anchors were selected. Two authors (R.P. and L.D.B.) then evaluated the methodologic quality of each article using the Coleman Methodology Score.

RESULTS

Ten articles were included. Four were prospective randomized studies, 2 were prospective cohort studies, and 4 were case series. The mean modified Coleman Methodology Score was 76.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the overall good results reported after arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder using different suture anchors, it is not possible to draw a definite and solid suggestion on which class of device is better advised for routine use. Thus the decision to use one of the anchor systems available may mostly depend on its cost-effectiveness, which should be the focus of future comprehensive research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.