Clinical outcomes following revision anterior shoulder arthroscopic capsulolabral stabilization

Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair

Background/Objectives: Recurrent shoulder instability following Bankart lesion repair often necessitates surgical revision. This systematic review aims to understand the failure rates of arthroscopic revision Bankart repair. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO, this systematic review examined twenty-five articles written between 2000 and 2024. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility across three databases, focusing on recurrent instability as the primary endpoint, while also noting functional measures, adverse events, revision operations, and return-to-sport rates when available. Results: The key surgical techniques for recurrent instability post-Bankart repair were identified, with revision arthroscopic Bankart being the most common (685/1032). A comparative analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence for open coracoid transfer compared to arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (9.67% vs. 17.14%; p < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed between remplissage plus Bankart repair and Bankart repair alone (23.75% vs. 17.14%; p = 0.24). The majority of studies did not include supracritical glenoid bone loss or engaging Hill-Sachs lesions, and neither subcritical nor non-engaging lesions significantly influenced recurrence rates (p = 0.85 and p = 0.80, respectively). Conclusions: Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair remains a viable option in the absence of bipolar bone loss; however, open coracoid transfer appears to have lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic Bankart repair, consistent with prior evidence. Further studies should define cutoffs and investigate the roles of critical glenoid bone loss and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Preoperative measurements of GBL on three-dimensional computed tomography and characterizing lesions based on glenoid track will help surgeons to choose ideal candidates for arthroscopic revision Bankart repair.

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical results of revision Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in databases, such as Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies tool. Studies for failed Bankart repair with revision Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure were included. The pain VAS, ROWE score, rate of return to sports and preinjury level of sports, recurrent instability, range of motion, and complications were compared. Additionally, the pain VAS, ROWE score, forward flexion, and external rotation at side were subjected to a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review. The functional outcomes in terms of the ROWE score, recurrent instability, return to sports, and the preinjury level of sports was better in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (ROWE score, 91 vs. 86.7; recurrent instability rate, 3.5% vs. 14.4%; return to sports rate, 100% vs. 87.9%; return to preinjury level of sports rate, 89.9% vs. 74.9%; all P < 0.001). However, the results of postoperative pain and the postoperative limitation of external rotation at side were worse in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (pain VAS, 1.4 vs. 0.8; postoperative external rotation at side, 38° vs. 60°; all P < 0.001). In addition, the majority of the complications occurred in the Latarjet procedure group. In the meta-analysis, the postoperative ROWE score was significantly higher in the Latarjet procedure group than that in the revision Bankart group (revision Bankart repair: 95% CI 88.9-80.9, I² = 65.70; Latarjet procedure: 95% CI 95.8-88.1, I² = 93.37; P = 0.014). However, the pain VAS, forward flexion, and external rotation at side did not reach the significant level in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared with revision Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair showed better ROWE scores, stability, and return to sports or preinjury level of sports; however, the postoperative pain and the limitation of external rotation at side were worse with more complications.

IRB NO

KUMC 2022-01-024.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Management of Shoulder Instability in Patients with Underlying Hyperlaxity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shoulder instability in patients with underlying joint hyperlaxity can be challenging to treat. Poorly defined terminology, heterogeneous treatments, and sparse reports on clinical outcomes impair the development of best practices in this patient population. This article provides a review of the current literature regarding optimal management of patients suffering from shoulder instability with concomitant hyperlaxity of the shoulder, from isolated shoulder joint hyperlaxity to congenital hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research shows specialized physiotherapy protocols focused on strengthening of periscapular muscles and improvement of sensorimotor control are a promising non-surgical therapeutic avenue in certain patients, which can be augmented by device-based intervention in select cases. If surgical treatment is warranted, arthroscopic techniques such as pancapsular shift or plication continue to demonstrate favorable outcomes and are currently considered the benchmark for success. The long-term success of more recent innovations such as coracoid process transfers, conjoint tendon transfers, subscapularis tendon augmentation, and capsular reconstruction remains unproven. For patients affected by connective tissue disorders, treatment success is generally less predictable, and the entire array of non-operative and operative interventions needs to be considered to achieve the best patient-specific treatment results. In the treatment of shoulder instability and concomitant hyperlaxity, specialized physiotherapy protocols augmented by device-based interventions have emerged as powerful, non-operative treatment options for select patients. Successful surgical approaches have been demonstrated to comprehensively address capsular redundancy, labral lesions, and incompetence of additional passive stabilizers in a patient-specific fashion, respective of the underlying connective tissue constitution.

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To provide an update of recent literature with a specialized focus on clinical outcomes following arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (ARBR) by performing a systematic review of all available literature published between 2013 and 2020.

METHODS

A literature search reporting clinical outcomes after ARBR was performed. Criteria for inclusion consisted of original studies; Level of Evidence of I-IV; studies focusing on clinical outcomes after ARBR published between January 1, 2013, and January 4, 2021; studies reporting recurrent dislocation or instability rate after ARBR; reoperation/revision following ARBR, return to sport rates following ARBR; and patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest were failure defined as recurrent instability or dislocation, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcomes at follow-up.

RESULTS

A large proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair were male, ranging between 67.7% and 93.8%. Failure rate and return to sports rate ranged between 6.1% and 46.8% and 25.9% and 88.3%, respectively, when patients with significant or greater than 20% glenoid bone loss was excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, which included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale, saw significant improvement over mean follow-up of ranging 21.64 to 60 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the failure rate and RTS rates after ARBR had a wide range, given the heterogeneity of the studies included, which varied in patient selection criteria pertaining to patients with greater than 20% glenoid bone. Although there have been advancements in arthroscopic techniques and a trend favoring arthroscopic stabilization procedures, there is a lack of consensus in recent literature for careful patient selection criteria that would minimize failure rates and maximize RTS rates after ARBR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, a systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

Risk factors for recurrence after Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this literature review was to identify preoperative risk factors associated with recurrent instability after Bankart repair.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for potentially eligible articles. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts using prespecified criteria. Articles were included if they clearly stated the risk factors for recurrence after Bankart repair. Data on patient characteristics and recurrence rate were collected from each study. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis and the statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.

Results

Nineteen studies that included 2922 participants met the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled prevalence of recurrent instability was 15.3% (range 6.9–42). The mean follow-up duration was 40.5 months (18–108). Twenty-one risk factors were identified, 10 of which were explored quantitatively. Statistically significant risk factors for recurrent instability following a Bankart procedure were age under 20 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8–96.23, p < 0.00001), a Hill-Sachs lesion (OR 3.61, 95% CI 2.06–6.33, p < 0.00001), a glenoid bone lesion (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.96–4.01, p < 0.00001), shoulder hyperlaxity (OR 4.55, 95% CI 2.19–9.44, p < 0.0001), and an off-track lesion (OR 5.53, 95% CI 2.21–13.86, p = 0.0003). There was moderate evidence indicating that male sex (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.07–2.37, p = 0.02) and playing contact sports (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96–2.45, p = 0.07) were further risk factors. Dominant side, a superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesion, and more than five preoperative dislocations were not found to be risk factors.

Conclusions

Patients younger than 20 years of age, a Hill–Sachs lesion, a glenoid bone lesion, shoulder hyperlaxity, and an off-track lesion appear to be significant predictors of recurrent instability following a Bankart procedure. Factors such as male sex and playing contact sports were associated with recurrent instability. Dominant side, a SLAP lesion, and more than five preoperative dislocations were not significant risk factors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03011-w.

High Variability of the Definition of Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability: An Analysis of the Current Literature by a Systematic Review

Purpose

To determine the definitions for recurrence used in the literature, assess the consensus in using these definitions, and determine the impact of these definitions on recurrence rates.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE including studies from 2000 to 2020 reporting on recurrence rates after anterior arthroscopic shoulder instability surgery. Dislocation, apprehension, subluxation and recurrence rates were compared.

Results

Ninety-one studies were included. In 68% of the eligible studies, recurrence rates are not well defined. Thirty (33%) studies did not report on dislocations, 45 (49%) did not report on subluxations, and 58 (64%) did not report on apprehension. Seventeen different definitions for recurrence of instability, 4 definitions of dislocations, and 8 definitions of subluxation were used.

Conclusion

Recurrence rates are poorly specified and likely underreported in the literature, hampering comparison with results of other studies. This highlights the need for a consensus on definition of recurrence across shoulder instability studies. We recommend not using the definition recurrence of instability anymore. We endorse defining dislocations as a radiographically confirmed dislocation or a dislocation that is manually reduced, subluxations as the feeling of a dislocation that can be (spontaneously) reduced without the need for a radiographically confirmed dislocation, and a positive apprehension sign as fear of imminent dislocation when placing the arm in abduction and external rotation during physical examination. Reporting on the events resulting in a dislocation or subluxation aids in making an estimation of the severity of instability.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review.

The Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: State of the Art in 2020: Decision-making and Operative Technique

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is prevalent among young athletes, and recurrent dislocations can result in compromised upper extremity function, increasing glenohumeral bone loss, and ultimately, posttraumatic arthritis. Although management algorithms have evolved in response to contemporary data and technical innovation, the arthroscopic Bankart repair continues to be a mainstay for the primary surgical management of first-time or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with marginal attritional glenoid bone loss (ie, <10% to 15%) and/or "on track" Hill-Sachs defects. The advantages of arthroscopic stabilization include its minimally invasive technique, high cost effectiveness, and relatively low recurrence rates and propensity for perioperative complications. The current article reviews contemporary indications/contraindications, management of the first-time dislocator, critical glenoid bone loss, surgical technique, and reported clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

Although the frequency of arthroscopic revision surgery is increasing in patients with recurrent dislocation after a primary shoulder stabilization, the literature describing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair has been limited. Preferred reporting items for systematic meta-analyses guidelines were followed by utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Keywords included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, stabilization, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Quality assessments were performed with criteria from the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). A total of 14 articles were included in this analysis. The mean MINORS score was 12.43. A total of 339 shoulders (337 patients) were included (281 males and 56 females). The mean follow-up period was 36.7 months. Primary surgeries were as follows: arthroscopic procedures (n = 172, 50.7%), open procedure (n = 87, 25.7%), and unknown (n = 80, 23.6%). The mean rate of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 15.3% (n = 52), and an additional re-revision procedure was needed in 6.5% of cases (n = 22). Overall, there were 18.0% (n = 61) of complications reported. This systematic review suggests that arthroscopic revision Bankart repair can lead to an improvement in functional outcomes and reasonable patient satisfaction with proper patient selection.

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

Background

Primary shoulder stabilization is successful, but there continues to be a risk of recurrence after operative repair, particularly in the young athlete. It is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes after various revision stabilization techniques to best counsel patients and manage expectations.

Purpose

To analyze recurrent instability and revision surgery rates in patients who underwent revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization procedures with either arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of level 2 to 4 evidence studies using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization (arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. The rate of recurrent instability, rate of revision surgery, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were extracted and reported. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score.

Results

A total of 37 studies met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis: 20 studies evaluated arthroscopic repair, 8 evaluated open repair, 5 evaluated Latarjet procedure, 3 evaluated bone block, and 2 evaluated capsular reconstruction. There was 1 study included in both arthroscopic and Latarjet procedures, for a total of 1110 revision cases. There was 1 level 2 study, and the remainder were level 3 or 4 with poor Downs and Black scores. Participants analyzed were most commonly young (weighted mean age, 26.1 years) and male (78.4%). The weighted mean clinical follow-up after revision surgery was 47.8 months. The weighted mean rate of recurrent instability was 3.8% (n = 245) after the Latarjet procedure, 13.4% (n = 260) after open repair, 16.0% (n = 531) after arthroscopic repair, 20.8% (n = 72) after bone block, and 31.0% (n = 35) after capsular reconstruction. The weighted mean rate of additional revision surgery was 0.0% after bone block, 0.02% after the Latarjet procedure, 9.0% after arthroscopic repair, 9.3% after open repair, and 22.8% after capsular reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes and objective measures of range of motion and strength improved with all revision techniques.

Conclusion

The current review identifies a deficiency in the literature pertaining to consistent meaningful outcomes and the effect of bone loss after revision shoulder stabilization. Published studies demonstrate, however, that revision shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or bone block techniques yielded satisfactory objective and patient-reported outcomes. The Latarjet procedure exhibited the lowest recurrent instability rate. This study confirms that recurrent instability remains a common problem, despite revision shoulder stabilization. The quality of research in revision shoulder stabilization remains poor, and higher quality studies are needed to establish best practices for treatment of this complex problem.

Arthroscopic stabilisation for shoulder instability

Since its first description over 30 years ago arthroscopic stabilisation has evolved. With improvements in knowledge, surgical techniques and materials technology, arthroscopic bankart repair has become the most widely used method for treating patients with symptomatic anterior shoulder instability. These procedures are typically performed in a younger, high demand patient population after a primary dislocation or to treat recurrent instability. A thorough clinical evaluation is required in the clinic setting not only to fully understand the injury pattern but also consider patient expectations prior to embarking on surgery. Diagnostic imaging will aid the clinician in determining the soft tissue pathology as well as assessing bone loss, which facilitates surgical decision-making. Selected patients may benefit from adjunctive procedures such as a remplissage for an "engaging" Hill-sachs lesion. This review will focus on the indications, pre-operative considerations, surgical techniques and outcomes of arthroscopic stabilisation.

Management of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability After Surgical Stabilization in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recurrent shoulder instability after stabilization is common in pediatric and adolescent athletes. The purpose of this review is to understand the risk factors that lead to failure of primary surgery and management principles in the setting of recurrent instability following surgical stabilization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rates of recurrence after primary and revision surgical stabilization remain higher than desirable. Risk factors for failure in include glenoid and humeral bone loss, capsular or ligamentous laxity, and young age though few studies have focused specifically on the adolescent population. Arthroscopic, open, and bone block techniques have been described in this population similar to adults. Failure after a primary shoulder stabilization remains a common problem in adolescents in no small part because a high proportion of these athletes return to high levels of activity. A thorough understanding of the index procedure and patient-specific risk factors for failure are key to successful planning of revision surgery. The current literature does not allow for firm treatment recommendations in individual pediatric or adolescent athletes, but the guiding principles are similar to those in adults. Specifically, all bony and soft tissue pathology should be identified and assessed, with an understanding that simply repeating the steps of the index procedure typically results in poor outcomes, and often an "escalation" of surgical complexity is required at the time of revision. When appropriately indicated, arthroscopic or open soft tissue procedures and Latarjet coracoid transfer can be safely and successfully implemented for revision shoulder stabilization in young athletes.

Risk Factors for Failure of Arthroscopic Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization

BACKGROUND

Recurrent anterior instability following a failed Bankart repair in the shoulder represents a challenging clinical scenario. Few studies have examined the role of arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization as a treatment option in these cases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization for patients with recurrent instability after a failed index procedure.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients underwent arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization after a failed index (open or arthroscopic) stabilization procedure. Sixty-five patients with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included in this study. The mean age at the time of revision surgery was 26 years (range, 15 to 57 years). The rate of recurrent instability and risk factors for failure were evaluated; the mean duration of follow-up was 4.7 years (range, 2 to 10.8 years). Glenoid and humeral bone loss were quantitatively assessed using preoperative T1-weighted magnetic resonance arthrograms to determine if the lesions were on-track or off-track.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (42%) of the patients experienced recurrent instability at a mean of 2.3 years after arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization. On multivariate analysis, the presence of an off-track lesion, an age of <22 years, and ligamentous laxity were independent predictors of recurrence (p = 0.022, 0.028, and 0.031, respectively). Among a cohort with these risk factors excluded, the failure rate was 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization is associated with a high rate of recurrent instability, and patient selection is of critical importance in order to minimize recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Shoulder Instability: Common Problems and Solutions

Operative treatment of the unstable shoulder historically has a high success rate. However, the complication rate has risen. This article reviews the pearls and pitfalls to attempt to elucidate the etiology for these complications and failures. Preoperative assessment of the unstable shoulder ultimately is critical to avoid complications, including history, physical examination, and key radiographic features. Intraoperative techniques include appropriate soft tissue mobilization, multiple points of fixation, avoidance of hardware-related problems, and appropriate management of the capsule and bone defects. Finally, postoperative rehabilitation is equally important to regain physiologic range of motion in a safe, supervised fashion.

Preventable Repeat Wrist Arthroscopies: Analysis of the Indications for 133 Cases

Background Frequently, patients undergo repeated wrist arthroscopies for single wrist problems. Purpose The purposes of this study were to assess the indications for repeat wrist arthroscopies and to identify potentially preventable procedures. Methods For this retrospective, two-center study, the electronic patient records were examined for patients, who underwent repeat wrist arthroscopy in a 5-year period. The cases were sorted by the underlying pathologies and the causes that necessitated repeat arthroscopies. Results Ulnar-sided wrist pain accounted for 100 (77%) of all 133 revision arthroscopies: 67 of which due to suspected ulnar triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) avulsions, 33 due to ulnar impaction syndromes. Cartilage was reassessed in 22 (17%) wrists. Thereby, insufficient preoperative diagnostics necessitated pure diagnostic before therapeutic arthroscopy in 49 (37%) wrists: 48 of which for TFCC pathologies, one for a scapholunate (SL) ligament lesion. The uncertainty of diagnosis despite previous arthroscopy necessitated 18 (14%) revision arthroscopies: 15 for ulnar TFCC avulsions, 1 for a central TFCC lesion, 2 to reevaluate the SL ligament. Inadequate photo or video documentation of the cartilage necessitated arthroscopic reassessment in 16 (12%) wrists. Conclusion In this series, two out of three revision arthroscopies could potentially have been prevented. Inadequate preoperative diagnostics with the lack of reliable preoperative diagnoses necessitated pure diagnostic arthroscopies for ulnar-sided wrist pain. However, even arthroscopically, the diagnosis of ulnar TFCC avulsions or SL ligament lesions is not trivial. Surgical skills and experience are necessary to detect such lesions. Finally, adequate photo or video documentation may prevent repeated arthroscopic diagnostic procedures. Level of Evidence Level IV.

Variability in Outcome Reporting for Operatively Managed Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the degree of variability in outcomes assessed after surgery for anterior shoulder instability in recent high-impact literature.

METHODS

Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, an extensive review of the literature during a 5-year period from January 2011 through December 2015 was performed across 6 orthopaedic journals with high impact factors to identify all studies investigating outcomes after anterior shoulder instability. Studies reporting clinical outcomes for patients with anterior glenohumeral instability after surgical treatment with at least 1-year follow-up were included. Several metrics were collected from each manuscript: (1) range of motion (ROM), (2) quantitative strength, (3) physical examination testing, (4) imaging, (5) patient-reported outcomes (PROs), (6) complications (including recurrent instability), (7) patient satisfaction, and (8) return to preinjury level of activity or sport. Variability in outcome measures was then qualitatively assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies were included for final analysis ranging from Level I to IV evidence. Fifty-nine percent reported ROM, and 18% measured strength. Other clinical exam maneuvers were assessed in 44%, with 40% assessing apprehension. Imaging was used in 62%, including X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography scans. On average, 2.25 PROs were assessed. In total, 28 different PROs were used to assess outcomes. The 3 most commonly reported PROs were the Rowe scale at 46%, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index at 31%, and the Constant Shoulder Score at 26%. Twenty-five percent included patient satisfaction in their assessment of outcomes. Recurrence was assessed by 59%, and return to preinjury level of activity was reported by 37% of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in outcome reporting for high-impact anterior shoulder instability literature with 28 different outcome tools used, making it difficult to compare outcomes between studies. Agreeing upon a uniform measure to assess outcomes would allow for clearer interpretation of the literature as well as the potential to draw conclusions from pooled data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

Shoulder Problems Motivate Innovative Solutions

Shoulder arthroscopic and related surgeons may require expertise in use of the 70° arthroscope, biologic patch augmentation, repair of massive rotator cuff tears, the Latarjet procedure and related glenoid bone augmentation, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Evaluation and treatment of failed shoulder instability procedures

Management of the unstable shoulder after a failed stabilization procedure can be difficult and challenging. Detailed understanding of the native shoulder anatomy, including its static and dynamic restraints, is necessary for determining the patient’s primary pathology. In addition, evaluation of the patient’s history, physical exam, and imaging is important for identifying the cause for failure after the initial procedure. Common mistakes include under-appreciation of bony defects, failure to recognize capsular laxity, technical errors, and missed associated pathology. Many potential treatment options exist for revision surgery, including open or arthroscopic Bankart repair, bony augmentation procedures, and management of Hill Sachs defects. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss in-depth the common risk factors for post-surgical failure, components for appropriate evaluation, and the different surgical options available for revision stabilization.

Level of evidence Level V.