Risk Factors for Recurrence of Anterior-Inferior Instability of the Shoulder After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients Younger Than 30 Years

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Association of Instability History and Off-Track Hill-Sachs Lesions in Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background

The glenoid track concept is now widely accepted, and its evaluation is considered essential for making decisions about surgery.

Purpose

To define preoperative descriptive data and clinical and functional features in patients with anterior glenohumeral instability according to glenoid track status and to analyze the influence of off-track Hill-Sachs (HS) lesions on preoperative shoulder function.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scans were used to measure the glenoid track. Descriptive data and preoperative objective and subjective clinical and functional features were compared between patients with on-track HS lesions versus off-track HS lesions. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to identify potential risk factors for off-track HS lesion development.

Results

A total of 235 patients (201 men, 34 women; mean age, 29.6 ± 8.6 years) were included- 134 shoulders (57%) with on-track HS lesions and 101 shoulders (43%) with off-track HS lesions. Age <20 years at first dislocation, number of dislocations, and ≥2 years between first dislocation and surgery were significantly different between the study groups (P = .005, P = .0001, and P = .01, respectively). Regarding these characteristics, the odds ratios for the risk of developing an off-track lesion were 2.67 (95% CI, 1.2-5.99)-1.2 times higher for each additional instability episode (95% CI, 1.025-1.14) and 2.42 times higher (95% CI, 1.176-4.608) for patients whose first dislocation was ≥2 years before surgery, respectively. Patients with off-track HS lesions had a significantly greater degree of instability (P = .04), worse Rowe scores (48.8 ± 15.3 vs 54.8 ± 28.3 for on-track HS lesions; P = .04), and lower Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scores (975 ± 454 vs 1179 ± 428 for on-track HS lesions; P = .01).

Conclusion

Characteristics related to a history of instability (age <20 years at first instability episode, larger number of dislocations, ≥2 years between first dislocation and surgery) were found to be risk factors for the development of an off-track HS lesion in this study. Off-track lesions led to a higher degree of instability and worse objective and subjective preoperative shoulder function versus on-track HS lesions.

Glenohumeral Pathologies following Primary Anterior Traumatic Shoulder Dislocation-Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Arthrography and Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

We assessed intraarticular injuries in patients after primary anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation by comparing magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) results with concomitant arthroscopic findings.

METHODS

All patients with primary traumatic shoulder dislocation who underwent arthroscopic surgery between 2001 and 2020 with preoperative MRA were included in this study. MRA was retrospectively compared with arthroscopic findings. Postoperative shoulder function was prospectively assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (quick DASH), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), as well as the rate of return to sports.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients were included in this study. A Hill-Sachs lesion was consistently found in the corresponding shoulders on MRA and arthroscopy in 35 cases (p = 0.007), a Bankart lesion in 37 shoulders (p = 0.004), and a superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesion in 55 cases (p = 0.581). Of all cases, 32 patients were available for a clinical and functional follow-up evaluation. A positive correlation was found between the level of sport practiced and the Oxford Shoulder Score (redislocation subset) (p = 0.032) and between the age at the time of surgery and the follow-up SSV (p = 0.036). Conversely, a negative correlation was observed between the age at the time of surgery and the Oxford Instability Score (redislocation subset) (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show a good correlation between MRA and arthroscopy. Therefore, MRA is a valid tool for the detection of soft tissue pathologies after primary anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation and can aid in presurgical planning.

Intra-articular soft arthroscopic Latarjet technique as a Bankart-plus procedure for type V superior labrum anterior-posterior lesion: lower rate of instability recurrence and better functional outcomes of a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular soft arthroscopic Latarjet technique (in-SALT) involves augmentation of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) with soft tissue tenodesis of long head of biceps to upper subscapularis. This study was conducted to investigate superiority of outcomes of in-SALT-augmented ABR over those of concurrent ABR and anterosuperior labral repair (ASL-R) in management of type V superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesion.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study (conducted between January 2015 and January 2022) included 53 patients with arthroscopic diagnosis of type V SLAP lesion. Patients were allocated into 2 consecutive groups: group A of 19 patients managed with concurrent ABR/ASL-R and group B of 34 patients managed with in-SALT-augmented ABR. Outcome measurements included 2-year postoperative pain, range of motion, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and Rowe instability scores. Failure was defined as frank/subtle postoperative recurrence of glenohumeral instability or objective diagnosis of Popeye deformity.

RESULTS

The statistically matched studied groups showed significant postoperative improvement in outcome measurements. However, group B demonstrated significantly better 3-month postoperative visual analog scale score (3.6 vs. 2.6, P = .006) and 24-month postoperative external rotation at 0° abduction (44° vs. 50°, P = .020) and ASES (84 vs. 92, P < .001) and Rowe (83 vs. 88, P = .032) scores. Rate of postoperative recurrence of glenohumeral instability was relatively lower in group B (10.5% vs. 2.9%, P = .290). No Popeye deformity was reported.

CONCLUSION

For management of type V SLAP lesion, in-SALT-augmented ABR yielded a relatively lower rate of postoperative recurrence of glenohumeral instability and significantly better functional outcomes compared with concurrent ABR/ASL-R. However, currently reported favorable outcomes of in-SALT should be validated via further biomechanical and clinical studies.

Anatomic risk factors for arthroscopic Bankart repair failure: A case-control study comparing failure and non-failure groups in an Asian population

Introduction

Post-arthroscopic Bankart repair failure/re-dislocation rates are influenced by several risk factors, including anatomic defects. There is limited evidence on the role of anatomic defects, especially for Hill-Sachs size in on-track lesions. This study aimed to assess glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs lesion and labral tear size and evaluate their contribution to post-operative instability after a primary repair.

Material and methods

Across 169 patients with on-track Bankart lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2010 to 2015, this study matched 14 failure with 14 non-failure cases based on age/gender. Patient demographics, pre-operative radiological parameters (including size of glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesion) and labral tear size were compared between the failure and non-failure groups.

Result

All patients were male with a mean age of 21.01 ± 4.97. Significantly greater glenoid bone loss (p = 0.024) and labral tear size (p = 0.039) were found in the failure group. However, there was no significant difference in mean volume of Hill-Sachs lesion between the two groups (p = 0.739).

Conclusion

Extensive glenoid bone loss and labral tears are risk factors for post-arthroscopic Bankart failure. However, the size of Hill-Sachs lesion is not a risk factor for failure, in a specific group of on-track Hill-Sachs lesions.

Level of evidence

Retrospective Study, Level IV.

Association Between Preoperative Glenoid Bone Loss and Postoperative Outcomes After Coracoid Transfer Combined With Open Bankart Repair: Comparison of the Bristow and Latarjet Techniques

Background

Whether the extent of glenoid bone loss (GBL) affects clinical outcome after coracoid process transfer (CPT) is still unclear.

Purpose

To evaluate postoperative outcomes after CPT combined with open Bankart repair in young rugby players in terms of the extent of GBL and between the Bristow and Latarjet techniques.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The authors investigated 101 shoulders in 91 competitive rugby players who underwent CPT combined with open Bankart repair by the Bristow (group B; 66 shoulders) or Latarjet (group L; 35 shoulders) procedure between 2007 and 2017. The extent of GBL was calculated from the en face view of the glenoid on preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans and was used to categorize shoulders into 4 grades (grade 0, 0%; grade 1, >0% and ≤10%; grade 2, >10% and ≤20%; grade 3, >20%). At the minimum 2-year follow-up, the authors analyzed the relationship between GBL or GBL grade and postoperative outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and patient satisfaction), return-to-play (RTP) times, graft failure (insufficient union or translocation), and recurrence.

Results

The mean GBL in all shoulders was 10.9% ± 9.2% and was not significantly different between the 2 groups. There were no significant correlations between GBL and any outcome measure in either group. The mean RTP time was significantly shorter in group L versus group B (4.8 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.8 months, respectively; P = .002), but it was not associated with GBL. In group B, the rate of graft failure was not significantly higher in shoulders with grade 0 or 1 GBL versus grade 2 or 3 GBL (8 [25.0%] vs 4 [11.8%], respectively; P = .21). In group B, graft failure was confirmed in 12 shoulders (18.2%), compared with 1 shoulder (2.9%) in group L. Postoperative recurrence occurred in significantly fewer shoulders in group B than in group L (2 [3.0%] vs 5 [14.3%], respectively; P = .047).

Conclusion

The extent of GBL did not affect outcome scores after CPT, regardless of operative procedure.

Management of Shoulder Instability in Patients with Seizure Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with seizure disorders commonly suffer shoulder dislocations and subsequent instability. Due to high rates of recurrence and bone loss, management of this instability and associated pathology has proven to be more complex than that of patients without seizure disorders. The ultimate goal of this review is to outline the various treatment modalities and their respective outcomes in this complex patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Optimization of medical management of seizure disorders is imperative. However, despite these efforts, the incidence of post-operative seizure activity continues to be a concern. These subsequent episodes increase the risk of further instability and failure of surgical procedures. Overall, the use of soft tissue procedures has proven to result in increased recurrence of instability compared to bone-block augmenting and grafting procedures. There are a variety of bone-block procedures that have been described for anterior and posterior instability. Despite their success in decreasing further instability, they are associated with several complications that patients should be informed of. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical management of shoulder instability in patients with seizure activity. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of the seizure activity is paramount to the success of their treatment. Further studies are required to evaluate the optimal timing and type of surgical intervention for individualized cases.

A 2-Year Follow-up May Not be Enough to Accurately Evaluate Recurrences After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Long-term Assessment of 272 Patients With a Mean Follow-up of 10.5 Years

BACKGROUND

There is a great discrepancy between the rates of recurrent instability reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair in relation to the follow-up time.

PURPOSE

To analyze the rate of recurrences after arthroscopic Bankart repair in the long term, emphasizing whether a minimum follow-up of 2 years is adequate to assess this outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and April 2013, a total of 356 athletes underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior glenohumeral instability at our institution. Return to sports, the Rowe score, the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. We analyzed the proportion of recurrences before and after 4 years of follow-up. Additionally, we performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate recurrence-free time in patients with a recurrence.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 10.5 ± 1.6 years, and the mean age was 20.8 ± 3.9 years. In total, 90% of patients were able to return to sports; of these, 91% returned to their preinjury level of play. The Rowe, SSV, and ASOSS scores showed a statistical improvement after surgery (P < .01). The proportion of patients with a recurrence during the follow-up period was 25% (95% CI, 20%-31%; n = 70), and the mean time until a recurrence was 3.8 ± 2.6 years. Only 39% of the recurrences (95% CI, 30%-48%) occurred in the first 2 years after surgery, while 61% (95% CI, 50%-73%) occurred in the first 4 years after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the effectiveness of Bankart repair to stabilize the shoulder decreased significantly over time. Indeed, less than half of the recurrences occurred after 2 years of follow-up. Therefore, we propose that the recommended minimum follow-up should be 4 years; otherwise, it is very likely that the actual rate of recurrences will be significantly underestimated.

Surgeon variation in glenoid bone reconstruction procedures for shoulder instability

BACKGROUND

Advances in the understanding and management of glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability have led to the development of alternative bony reconstruction techniques to the Latarjet using free bone grafts, but little is known about surgeon adoption of these procedures. This study sought to characterize surgeon variation in the use of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures for shoulder instability and ascertain reasons underlying procedure choice.

METHODS

A 9-question survey was created and distributed to 160 shoulder surgeons members of the PacWest Shoulder and Elbow Society, of whom 65 (41%) responded. The survey asked questions regarding fellowship training, years in practice, surgical volume, preferred methods of glenoid bone reconstruction, and reasons underlying treatment choice.

RESULTS

All surgeons completed a fellowship, with an equal number of sports medicine fellowship-trained (46%) and shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained (46%) physicians. The majority had been in practice for at least 6 years (6-10 years: 25%; >10 years: 59%). Most (78%) performed ≤10 glenoid bony reconstructions per year, and 66% indicated that bony procedures represented <10% of their total annual shoulder instability case volume. The open Latarjet was the preferred primary reconstruction method (69%), followed by open free bone block (FBB) (22%), arthroscopic FBB (8%), and arthroscopic Latarjet (1%). Distal tibia allograft (DTA) was the preferred graft (74%) when performing an FBB procedure, followed by iliac crest autograft (18%), and distal clavicle autograft (6%). The top 5 reasons for preferring Latarjet over FBB were the sling effect (57%), the autologous nature of the graft (37%), its robust clinical evidence (22%), low cost (17%), and availability (11%). The top 5 reasons for choosing an FBB procedure were less anatomic disruption (58%), lower complication rate (21%), restoration of articular cartilage interface (16%), graft versatility (11%), and technical ease (11%). Only 20% of surgeons indicated always performing a bony glenoid reconstruction procedure in the noncontact athlete with less than 20% glenoid bone loss. However, that percentage rose to 62% when considering a contact athlete with the same amount of bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Although open Latarjet continues to be the most popular glenoid bony primary reconstruction procedure in shoulder instability, nearly 30% of shoulder surgeons in the western United States have adopted FBB techniques as their preferred treatment modality--with DTA being the most frequently used graft. High-quality comparative clinical effectiveness research is needed to reduce decisional conflict and refine current evidence-based treatment algorithms.

Clinical outcomes and recurrence rate of 4 procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: ASA, remplissage, open, and arthroscopic Latarjet: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 4 surgical techniques in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation, glenoid bone loss (GBL) <15% and Instability Severity Index (ISI) score >3.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted on 226 patients who underwent 1 of 4 different techniques (Bankart plus arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA), Bankart plus remplissage, Latarjet, Arthro-Latarjet). The inclusion criteria were: recurrent dislocation, GBL <15%, and ISI score >3. The exclusion criteria were: GBL >15%, voluntary instability, multidirectional instability, preexisting osteoarthritis, throwing athletes' first dislocation, and ISI score<3. Follow-up ranged from 24 months to 6 years. Hyperlaxity was clinically evaluated according to Neer and Coudane-Walch tests. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Rowe score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) for each technique. Before surgery, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanning. The Pico area method was used to assess the percentage of GBL. The operations were performed by 10 experienced surgeons; the functional outcomes were evaluated by 2 independent observers.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the present series. A total of 89.2% of patients in the ASA group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale, improved from 838 to 235 points. A total of 79.9% of patients in remplissage (R) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1146 to 465 points. A total of 98.5% of patients in the Latarjet (L) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1456 to 319 points. A total of 81.6% of patients in the Arthro-Latarjet (AL) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1250 to 221 points. The recurrence rates were as follows: ASA group (7%), remplissage group (6.1%), L group (1.5%), Arthro-Latarjet group (0%). Patients in the open L group had 15.5% (10/66) more complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of ASA and remplissage to augment the Bankart repair have been demonstrated to be effective for restoring joint stability, yielding good clinical outcomes similar to the L procedure in patients affected by recurrent anterior dislocation with GBL <15% and an ISI score score >3. Soft tissues augmentations of the Bankart repair have been demonstrated to be effective for addressing anterior soft tissue deficiency dysfunction and critical Hill-Sachs lesions.

Inconsistencies in Controlling for Risk Factors for Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failure rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are highly variable in the current orthopaedic literature. Predictive factors for risk of failure have been studied to improve patient selection, refine surgical techniques, and define the role of bony procedures. However, significant heterogeneity in the analysis and controlling of risk factors makes evidence-based management decisions challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this systematic review were (1) to critically assess the consistency of reported risk factors for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, (2) to identify the existing studies with the most comprehensive inclusion of confounding factors in their analyses, and (3) to give recommendations for which factors should be reported consistently in future clinical studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. An initial search yielded 1754 titles, from which 56 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. A total of 29 full-text articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding recurrent anterior shoulder instability; (2) surgical procedures performed including arthroscopic anterior labral repair; (3) reported clinical outcome data including failure rate; and (4) assessment of risk factors for surgical failure. Further subanalyses were performed for 15 studies that included a multivariate analysis, 17 studies that included glenoid bone loss, and 8 studies that analyzed the Instability Severity Index Score.

RESULTS

After full-text review, 12 of the most commonly studied risk factors were identified and included in this review. The risk factors that were most consistently significant in multivariate analyses were off-track lesions (100%), glenoid bone loss (78%), Instability Severity Index Score (75%), level of sports participation (67%), number of anchors (67%), and younger age (63%). In studies of bone loss, statistical significance was more likely to be found using advanced imaging, with critical bone loss thresholds of 10% to 15%. Several studies found predictive thresholds of 2 to 4 for Instability Severity Index Score by receiver operating characteristic or multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Studies reporting risk factors for failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair often fail to control for known confounding variables. The factors with the most common statistical significance among 15 multivariate analyses are off-track lesions, glenoid bone loss, Instability Severity Index Score, level of sports participation, number of anchors, and younger age. Studies found significance more commonly with advanced imaging measurements or arthroscopic assessment of glenoid bone loss and with lower thresholds for the Instability Severity Index Score (2-4). Future studies should attempt to control for all relevant factors, use advanced imaging for glenoid bone loss measurements, and consider a lower predictive threshold for the Instability Severity Index Score.

Knotless Arthroscopic Glenoid Labral Stabilization for a 270° Tear With Concurrent Remplissage in the Lateral Decubitus Position

Labral tears resulting in 270° near-circumferential pathology predispose patients to recurrent instability and are technically challenging to repair. Furthermore, when such lesions are associated with Hill-Sachs lesions, recurrent instability risk is significantly increased and can result in substantially lower clinical outcomes. When determining a surgical treatment algorithm for shoulder stabilization, it is important to consider both humeral- and glenoid-sided pathology because subtle defects can have significant influence on recurrence and patient reported outcomes. In this Technical Note and accompanying video, we discuss our surgical technique for knotless arthroscopic stabilization for a 270° labral tear with concurrent remplissage in the setting of recurrent shoulder instability.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.

A Case Series of Whether Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Following Primary Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Versus Recurrent Dislocation in Soldiers Has Any Effect on the Postoperative Recurrence Rate

Background

Anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation is very common among soldiers or any young population following injury, which is invariably treated by closed reduction. The dislocation when treated nonsurgically has a 71% high rate of recurrence. There is not much data available on the rate of recurrence when primary dislocation (first time) was treated by arthroscopic Bankart repair and in those who have recurrent (multiple) dislocations before surgery.

Aim

This study aims to report the postoperative recurrence rate in soldiers with first-time dislocation versus those with recurrent dislocations before surgery.

Study design

The present study is a level IV case series treatment study.

Methods

In this prospective study, 143 soldiers were included, of which 82 patients had first-time dislocation (F group) and 61 patients had recurrent dislocation before surgery (R group). The patients were evaluated and followed up for over three years. Nonabsorbable PEEK suture anchors (Chetan Meditech, India) were used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. The recurrence rates, Rowe scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, subjective shoulder values (SSVs), and satisfaction were compared. We also used the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score for evaluation. The scores were recorded preoperatively and at three-year follow-up. The range of motion, postoperative function, recurrence rates, and return to pre-injury state was evaluated.

Results

A total of 143 patients were included, providing 97.3% follow-up at an average of 36 months. The postoperative recurrence rate was 19.7% in the F group and 58.3% in the R group (P < 0.001). The odds of postoperative recurrence were five times higher in the recurrent dislocation group (odds ratio (OR): 5.23).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent repair after first-time dislocation show a lower postoperative recurrence rate as compared with those who had multiple dislocations before surgery. It is prudent to advise early repair even after the first dislocation especially in young active soldiers to reduce the risk of postoperative recurrence.

Clinical outcomes following open anterior shoulder stabilization for glenohumeral instability in the young collision athlete

BACKGROUND

Anterior glenohumeral instability occurs most commonly in those aged 15-29, with 72% of individuals younger than 22 years suffering recurrent episodes; collision athletes are at particular risk. In the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss, arthroscopic Bankart repair is widely used despite concerns of recurrent dislocations when compared with open techniques. Furthermore, indications for bone-block procedures are evolving with the Latarjet procedure being favored amongst recent authors as a primary stabilization method in elite and contact athletes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of open modified Bankart stabilization in treating anterior glenohumeral instability in young collision athletes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of outcomes of consecutive patients aged 15-20 years who underwent unilateral or bilateral open stabilization for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability over a 7-year period (2007-2015). The cohort was selected as recent literature suggests that this is the group with the highest redislocation rate and poorest outcomes. Outcome assessments included redislocation rate, return to sport, pain score, patient-related satisfaction scores, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (55 male: 5 female) of mean age 18 years (range: 15-20 years) were available for follow-up at 7 years. All but 3 were competitive athletes with 18 competing regionally and 9 internationally; rugby union and rugby league represent the most common sports. Fifty-five of 60 (92%) have returned to their desired level of sport with 62% of athletes returning to their previous level of competition sport and 1 retuning at a higher level. The mean postoperative pain score was 2.5/10. The mean time to return to play was 14 months (range: 5-48 months). Eight of 60 shoulders reported redislocation (13%), 7 of these being traumatic dislocations after return to high-impact sporting activities. At 7 years of follow-up, 4 of 60 shoulders (7%) had undergone revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Young collision athletes represent a challenging cohort of instability patients. This study of open modified Bankart in young collision sport athletes revealed excellent outcomes with 92% return to sport and a low revision rate. The results from this cohort rival those of arthroscopic repair. The open procedure described here in this 7-year series represents a robust, reliable technique that could be considered as an alternative to arthroscopic Bankart due to concern for recurrence, while avoiding potential morbidity and complication of bone-block procedures. There is still a role for the open modified Bankart procedure in treating traumatic anterior instability.

Open Bristow Versus Open Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability in Rugby Players: Radiological and Clinical Outcomes

Background:

Coracoid transfer is a reliable method for managing anterior shoulder instability in athletes who play contact sports; however, differences between the Bristow and Latarjet procedures are unclear.

Purpose:

To compare clinical outcomes and rates of bone union and bone resorption of the coracoid process between the open Bristow and open Latarjet procedures in rugby players.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Rugby players who underwent an open Bristow or an open Latarjet procedure were retrospectively reviewed for anterior shoulder instability, and 66 shoulders in the Bristow group and 35 in the Latarjet group were included. Graft union and resorption were evaluated using computed tomography at 3 months to 1 year postoperatively. Patient-reported outcome measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, and satisfaction rate) were obtained at a mean follow-up of 74 months (range, 45-160 months) for Bristow and 64 months (range, 50-76 months) for Latarjet procedures. Recurrence and the rate of return to play (RTP), frequency of pain after RTP, and retirement rate after RTP were also assessed.

Results:

In 97.1% of the Latarjet procedure cases, bone union of the coracoid was achieved at 3 months postoperatively; however, bone union was achieved in only 72.7% of the Bristow procedure cases at 6 months postoperatively. Bone resorption of the coracoid process occurred in 6.1% of shoulders after the Bristow procedure, whereas 100% of shoulders showed bone resorption after the Latarjet procedure. No statistical differences were found in outcome scores between the 2 procedures. Subluxation and persistent pain after returning to sports were identified at a significantly higher rate in the Latarjet group (5 shoulders [14%] and 9 shoulders [26%], respectively) than in the Bristow group (2 shoulders [3%] and 2 shoulders [3%]) (P = .0471 and P = .001, respectively).

Conclusion:

The Latarjet procedure had an advantage in the early and high rate of bone union but was at a disadvantage in bone resorption compared with the Bristow procedure. Subluxation and pain after returning to sports were more frequent in patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure than in those who underwent the open Bristow procedure.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

Background:

The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results.

Purpose:

To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery.

Results:

The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003).

Conclusion:

In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

Understanding Anterior Shoulder Instability Through Machine Learning: New Models That Predict Recurrence, Progression to Surgery, and Development of Arthritis

Background

Management of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) aims to reduce risk of future recurrence and prevent complications via nonoperative and surgical management. Machine learning may be able to reliably provide predictions to improve decision making for this condition.

Purpose

To develop and internally validate a machine-learning model to predict the following outcomes after ASI: (1) recurrent instability, (2) progression to surgery, and (3) the development of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) over long-term follow-up.

Study Design

Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

An established geographic database of >500,000 patients was used to identify 654 patients aged <40 years with an initial diagnosis of ASI between 1994 and 2016; the mean follow-up was 11.1 years. Medical records were reviewed to obtain patient information, and models were generated to predict the outcomes of interest. Five candidate algorithms were trained in the development of each of the models, as well as an additional ensemble of the algorithms. Performance of the algorithms was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis.

Results

Of the 654 included patients, 443 (67.7%) experienced multiple instability events, 228 (34.9%) underwent surgery, and 39 (5.9%) developed symptomatic OA. The ensemble gradient-boosted machines achieved the best performances based on discrimination (via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]: AUC_recurrence = 0.86), AUC_surgery = 0.76, AUC_OA = 0.78), calibration, decision curve analysis, and Brier score (Brier_recurrence = 0.138, Brier_surgery = 0.185, Brier_OA = 0.05). For demonstration purposes, models were integrated into a single web-based open-access application able to provide predictions and explanations for practitioners and researchers.

Conclusion

After identification of key features, including time from initial instability, age at initial instability, sports involvement, and radiographic findings, machine-learning models were developed that effectively and reliably predicted recurrent instability, progression to surgery, and the development of OA in patients with ASI. After careful external validation, these models can be incorporated into open-access digital applications to inform patients, clinicians, and researchers regarding quantifiable risks of relevant outcomes in the clinic.

Open Stabilization Procedures of the Shoulder in the Athlete: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Shoulder instability is a relatively common injury especially in the young athletic population and its surgical management continues to remain a controversial topic in sports medicine orthopedics. Anterior instability is the most common type encountered and is estimated to have an incidence rate of 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general population; however, this figure is likely higher in the young athletic population. While in recent practice, arthroscopic surgery has become the new gold standard for management, reported failure rates as high as 26% and high recurrence rates in specific subpopulations such as young men in high collision sports have led to the consideration of alternative open procedures such as open Bankart repair, Latarjet, capsular shift, and glenoid bone grafting. These procedures may be preferred in specific patient subgroups such as young athletes involved in contact sports and those with Hill-Sachs defects and multidirectional instability, with postoperative recurrence rates of instability as low as 10%. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of different open surgical techniques in the management of shoulder instability and summarize patient outcomes including recurrence rates for shoulder instability, return to sport, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and complications either individually by procedure or in comparison with other techniques, with special focus on their impact in the athletic population.

Primary Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction in Patients with Subcritical Bone Loss: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Anterior shoulder instability and its treatment is a quickly evolving field of interest in orthopaedics, both for patients and for health-care systems. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) compared with Bankart repair in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss.

Incidence of Re-Dislocation/Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Analysis via Telephone Interviews

INTRODUCTION

Current advances in arthroscopic surgery have led to good outcomes for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. However, recent studies have reported recurrence rates of 4%-19% after ABR. In our survey conducted from February 2002 to December 2010, the post-ABR re-dislocation rate was 8.8%. In 2011, we began performing the ABR with open Bristow (B) procedure or Remplissage (R) procedure in patients with large glenoid or humeral head bone defects and in patients who play collision sports. Therefore, the present study is the second series evaluating the incidence of re-dislocation and instability after recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.

METHOD

Surgery was performed for 84 cases of shoulder instability from January 2011 to August 2017. After excluding 7 open surgeries, 6 reoperations, and 2 patients with multidirectional instability, telephone interviews were conducted with 69 patients. The average follow-up duration was 46.9 months (range, 13-92 months).

RESULT

ABR alone was performed 61 patients; the B procedure was added for 3 patients, and the R procedure was added for 5 patients. Telephone interviews were conducted with 61 patients. There were no cases of re-dislocation or reoperation. Four patients who underwent only ABR experienced postoperative instability, but not to the extent that their daily lives were affected.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the addition of R or B technique to ABR for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation resulted in a 0% re-dislocation rate.

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.

Glenoid track measurement using magnetic resonance imaging arthrography is predictive of recurrent instability following arthroscopic shoulder stabilisation

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to investigate medium-term survivorship following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for anterior glenohumeral instability. The secondary aim was to determine whether the pre-operative magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography glenoid track measurement predicted recurrent instability following ABR.

METHODS

Over a 9-year period (2008-2017), 215 patients underwent ABR. Median age was 26 years (IQR 22-32.5; range 14-77). There were 173 males (81%). 175 patients (81%) had available pre-operative MR arthrography, which was used to determine the presence of "off-track" bone loss. Retrospective analysis was undertaken to determine recurrence of instability at a median follow-up of 76 months (range 21-125 months). Survivorship analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier methodology: the endpoints examined were repeat dislocation, revision stabilisation, and symptomatic instability.

RESULTS

56 patients (26%) presented with further instability, including 29 patients with recurrent dislocation and 15 patients required revision stabilisation. Cumulative incidence of instability was 10% at 1 year, 27% at 5 years and 28% at 7 years. No significant difference in instability was seen between men and women 7 years after stabilisation (19% vs 17%; p = 0.87). Age at time of surgery did not predict recurrence. "Off-track" lesions were identified in 29 patients (16.1%). The incidence of redislocation was significantly higher in these patients (24% vs 3%; p = 0.01; relative risk 7.2; 95% CI 2.45-20.5; p = 0.001). Recurrent instability without frank redislocation was also significantly higher in this group (60% vs 18%; RR 3.33, 95% CI 2.02-5.20; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has reported a significant rate of recurrent instability in longer-term follow-up after ABR. It has also identified pre-operative MR arthrography as an important predictor of recurrent instability, which may be used to risk stratify patients with anterior instability in a typical UK population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III (cohort study).

Knot-Tying versus Knotless Suture Anchors for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the results of using knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2011 and 2017 using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors were retrospectively reviewed. We collected demographic data, clinical scores (pain visual analogue scale), functional visual analogue scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores, and Rowe score), and range of motion (ROM). Re-dislocation and subjective anterior apprehension test rates between the two techniques were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 154 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, 115 patients (knot-tying group: n=61 and knotless group: n=54) were included in this study. Of the 115 patients, 102 were male and 13 were female. The mean patient age was 27 years (range: 17-60), and the mean follow-up period was 43 months (range: 24-99). There were no significant differences in the final clinical scores and ROM between the two groups. Re-dislocation was observed in 6 (9.8%) and 4 (7.3%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. Apprehension was observed in 11 (18.0%) and 12 (22.2%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to re-dislocation and anterior apprehension.

CONCLUSION

Re-dislocation rates and clinical scores were similar with the use of knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair after a minimal 2 year follow-up.

Clinical Relevance of Persistent Off-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion After Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is often used to address off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (OFF-HS) in shoulders with anterior instability. There are concerns as to whether the Latarjet procedure is able to convert all OFF-HS into on-track Hill-Sachs lesions (ON-HS) and whether this limitation could explain the cases of recurrent postoperative instability.

HYPOTHESIS

Latarjet surgery converts many preoperative OFF-HS lesions, but not all of them, and there is a difference in the failure rate between shoulders with converted lesions and those with persistent OFF-HS lesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients with anterior shoulder instability and an OFF-HS lesion treated with an arthroscopic classic Latarjet procedure between January 2010 and September 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with moderate or severe shoulder arthrosis, rotator cuff tears, or age older than 50 years were excluded. Glenoid track (GT), HS, HS interval (HSI), and the difference between HSI and GT (ΔHSI-GT) were measured preoperatively. A postoperative computed tomography scan and a clinical evaluation, including the Rowe and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scores, were performed at a minimum 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. Postoperatively, 2 groups of patients were obtained: (1) patients with postoperative persistent OFF-HS; (2) patients with postoperative ON-HS. Clinical and imaging data were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients (n = 51 shoulders), with a mean age of 29.8 ± 8.4 years (range, 15-50 years), met the inclusion criteria. Six shoulders (11.8%) still showed OFF-HS lesions despite Latarjet surgery. There were no postoperative dislocations, but 3 patients reported subluxations. The subluxation rate was significantly higher in the postoperative persistent OFF-HS group (2 [33%] vs 1 [2.2%]; P = .033). There was a wider preoperative HSI (29.8 ± 2.4 mm vs 22.9 ± 3.5 mm; P < .001) and a larger preoperative ΔHSI-GT (12.2 ± 3.8 mm vs 4.82 ± 3.2 mm; P < .001) in the persistent OFF-HS group. A receiver operating characteristic curve was performed based on preoperative ΔHSI-GT values. A preoperative ΔHSI-GT value ≥7.45 mm predicted a persistent OFF-HS after Latarjet surgery (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 87%; positive predictive value, 50%; and negative predictive value, 100%).

CONCLUSION

Latarjet surgery converted many preoperative OFF-HS lesions into ON-HS lesions, but not all of them. Six patients (11.8%) retained an OFF-HS and had a statistically significantly higher failure rate after Latarjet surgery compared with those with postoperative ON-HS lesions. Because there were few postoperative OFF-HS lesions and few recurrences, findings are statistically fragile and should be confirmed with larger series.

Bankart Repair With Subscapularis Augmentation in Athletes With Shoulder Hyperlaxity

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that arthroscopic Bankart repair with associated arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) could be a valid surgical option in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability, in collision and contact sports athletes, affected by shoulder hyperlaxity.

METHODS

In total, 591 arthroscopic Bankart repairs plus ASA were performed in 6 shoulder centers from 2009 to 2017. Inclusion criteria were the following: collision and contact sports activities, recurrent anterior instability associated with hyperlaxity and glenoid bone loss (GBL) < 15%. Exclusion criteria were GBL > 15%, voluntary instability, multidirectional instability, pre-existing osteoarthritis and throwing athletes. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. Hyperlaxity was clinically evaluated according to Neer and Coudane-Walch tests. Before surgery, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanning. Pico area method was used to assess the percentage of GBL. Patients were operated on by 6 surgeons, and their functional outcomes were evaluated by 2 independent observers. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess results.

RESULTS

Overall, 397 patients with evidence of shoulder hyperlaxity (positive sulcus sign in ER1 position and Coudane-Walch test > 85°) met all inclusion criteria. The mean WOSI score was 321; the mean Rowe score rose from 68.5 to 92.5 (P = .037), and the ASES score rose from 71.5 to 97.4 (P = .041). Seven patients (1.6%) had atraumatic redislocation, and 9 patients (2.2%) had post-traumatic redislocation. At final follow-up the mean functional deficit of external rotation was 15° with the arm in adduction (ER1 position) and 10° in abduction (ER2 position).

CONCLUSIONS

The Bankart repair plus ASA has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for restoring joint stability in patients practicing collision and contact sports or affected by chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with GBL (<15%) and hyperlaxity, without compromising external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Glenoid Pathology, Skeletal Immaturity, and Multiple Preoperative Instability Events Are Risk Factors for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability After Arthroscopic Stabilization in Adolescent Athletes

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors for recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic stabilization in adolescent athletes.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was undertaken of all patients younger than 18 years undergoing arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for anterior instability between 2009 and 2016. Two patient cohorts were identified: (1) patients with recurrent instability (frank dislocations or subluxations) after arthroscopic stabilization and (2) an age- and sex-matched cohort of patients with no recurrent instability at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up from index surgery. Patient demographic, injury, radiographic, and surgical variables were recorded. Variables with P < .10 on univariate analysis were entered into a binary logistic multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 35 patients (20.5%) in whom arthroscopic stabilization failed at a mean of 1.2 ± 1.0 years after their index surgical procedure. A separate age- and sex-matched cohort of 35 patients with no evidence of recurrent instability was identified (mean follow-up, 5.4 ± 2.0 years; minimum follow-up, 2 years). Univariate analysis identified increased glenoid bone loss (P = .039), decreased glenoid retroversion (P = .024), and more than 1 instability event prior to surgery (P = .017) as significant risk factors for recurrent instability. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that glenoid retroversion less than 6°, skeletal immaturity, and more than 1 prior instability event significantly and independently predicted future recurrence. The risk of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization was increased by 3 times in patients with 2 risk factors and by 4 times in patients with all 3 risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior glenoid bone loss, glenoid version, skeletal immaturity, and multiple preoperative instability events are risk factors for failed arthroscopic stabilization in adolescent athletes with anterior instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Limited Predictive Value of the Instability Severity Index Score: Evaluation of 217 Consecutive Cases of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE

To review the existing variables and their ability to predict recurrence of shoulder instability as it relates to the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS), as well as evaluate any other pertinent imaging and patient history variables that may impact risk of recurrent anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and who had arthroscopic instability repair were identified. Exclusion criteria were prior surgery on the shoulder, posterior or multidirectional instability, instability caused by seizure disorder, or a rotator cuff tear. All ISIS variables were recorded (age <20 years, sport type and level, hyperlaxity, Hill-Sachs on anteroposterior external rotation radiograph, loss of glenoid contour on anteroposterior radiograph), as well as additional variables: (1) number of instability events; (2) total time of instability; (3) glenoid bone loss (GBL) percent; and (4) Hill-Sachs measures (H/L/W/D/Volume). Postoperative outcomes were assessed based on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and recurrent anterior instability. Regression analysis was used to determine preoperative variables that predicted outcomes and failures.

RESULTS

There were 217 consecutive patients (209 male patients [96.5%], 8 female patients [3.5%]) who met the inclusion criteria and were all treated with a primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization during a 3.5-year period (2007-2011), with a mean follow-up time of 42 months (range, 26-58). The mean age at first instability event was 23.9 years (range, 16-48 years) and the mean cumulative ISIS score for the overall group was 3.6 (range, 1-6). Outcomes were improved from mean preoperative (WOSI = 1,050/2,100; ASES = 61.0; SANE = 52.5) to postoperative (WOSI = 305/2,100; ASES = 93.5; SANE = 95.5). A total of 11.5% (25/217) of patients had evidence of recurrent instability (subluxation or dislocation). Additionally, all 25 patients who failed postoperatively also had consistently inferior ASES, SANE, and WOSI outcome scores when compared with successfully treated patients. Factors associated with failure were GBL greater than 14.5% (P < .001), total time of instability symptoms greater than 3 months (P = .03), Hill-Sachs volume greater than 1.3 cm³ (P = .02), contact sports participation (P = .05), and age 20 years or younger (P < .01). There was no correlation in outcomes with Hill-Sachs on presence of glenoid contour loss on radiograph (P = .07), participation sports, or ISIS (mean = 3.4 success vs 3.9 failure, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 42 months was an 11.5% failure rate after arthroscopic Bankart stabilization surgery. This study shows no correlation between treatment outcome and the ISIS measure, given a mean score of 3.4 for the overall cohort with little difference identified in those who failed. However, several important parameters previously unidentified were detected including, GBL greater than 14.5%, Hill-Sachs volume greater than 1.3 cm³, and duration of instability symptoms (>3 months). The ISIS may need to be redesigned to incorporate variables that more accurately portray the actual risk of failure after arthroscopic stabilization, including quantification of both glenoid and humeral head bone loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III (Retrospective Case Series).

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.

Surgical treatment for recurrent shoulder instability: factors influencing surgeon decision making

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for recurrent anterior shoulder instability remains controversial, particularly in the face of glenoid and/or humeral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to use a contingent-behavior questionnaire (CBQ) to determine which factors drive surgeons to perform bony procedures over soft tissue procedures to address recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A CBQ survey presented each respondent with 32 clinical vignettes of recurrent shoulder instability that contained 8 patient factors. The factors included (1) age, (2) sex, (3) hand dominance, (4) number of previous dislocations, (5) activity level, (6) generalized laxity, (7) glenoid bone loss, and (8) glenoid track. The survey was distributed to fellowship-trained surgeons in shoulder/elbow or sports medicine. Respondents were asked to recommend either a soft tissue or bone-based procedure, then specifically recommend a type of procedure. Responses were analyzed using a multinomial-logit regression model that quantified the relative importance of the patient characteristics in choosing bony procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy orthopedic surgeons completed the survey, 33 were shoulder/elbow fellowship trained and 37 were sports medicine fellowship trained; 52% were in clinical practice ≥10 years and 48% <10 years; and 95% reported that the shoulder surgery made up at least 25% of their practice. There were 53% from private practice, 33% from academic medicine, and 14% in government settings. Amount of glenoid bone loss was the single most important factor driving surgeons to perform bony procedures over soft tissue procedures, followed by the patient age (19-25 years) and the patient activity level. The number of prior dislocations and glenoid track status did not have a strong influence on respondents' decision making. Twenty-one percent glenoid bone loss was the threshold of bone loss that influenced decision toward a bony procedure. If surgeons performed 10 or more open procedures per year, they were more likely to perform a bony procedure.

CONCLUSION

The factors that drove surgeons to choose bony procedures were the amount of glenoid bone loss with the threshold at 21%, patient age, and their activity demands. Surprisingly, glenoid track status and the number of previous dislocations did not strongly influence surgical treatment decisions. Ten open shoulder procedures a year seems to provide a level of comfort to recommend bony treatment for shoulder instability.

Diagnosis and Management of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability

Anterior shoulder instability is the most common form of shoulder instability and is usually because of a traumatic injury. Careful patient selection is key to a favorable outcome. Primary shoulder stabilization should be considered for patients with high risk of recurrence or for elite athletes. Soft-tissue injury to the labrum, capsule, glenohumeral ligament, and rotator cuff influence the outcome. Glenoid bone loss (GBL) and type of bone loss (on-track/off-track) are important factors when recommending treatment strategy. Identification and management of concomitant injuries are paramount. The physician should consider three-dimensional CT reconstructions and magnetic resonance arthrography when concomitant injury is suspected. Good results can be expected after Bankart repair in on-track Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) with GBL < 13.5%. Bankart repair without adjunct procedures is not recommended in off-track HSLs, regardless of the size of GBL. If GBL is 13.5% to 25% but on-track, adjunct procedures to Bankart repair should be considered (remplissage and inferior capsular shift). Bone block transfer is recommended when GBL > 20% to 25% or when the HSL is off-track. Fresh tibia allograft or lilac crest autograft are good treatment options after failed bone block procedure.

Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

PURPOSE

Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21-30 years.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The Hill-Sachs interval to glenoid track width ratio is comparable to the instability severity index score for predicting risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to clinically validate the Hill-Sachs interval to glenoid track width ratio (H/G ratio) compared with the instability severity index (ISI) score for predicting an increased risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation was performed using data from patients with anteroinferior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with a follow-up period of at least 24 months. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal cut-off values for the H/G ratio and the ISI score to predict an increased risk of recurrent instability. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the two methods and the sensitivity and specificity of their optimal cut-off values were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included, among whom 31 (14.0%) experienced recurrent instability during the follow-up period. The optimal cut-off values for predicting an increased risk of recurrent instability were an H/G ratio of ≥ 0.7 and ISI score of ≥ 4. There were no significant differences between the AUC of the two methods (H/G ratio AUC = 0.821, standard error = 0.035 and ISI score AUC = 0.792, standard error = 0.04; n.s.) nor between the sensitivity and specificity of the optimal cut-off values (n.s. and n.s., respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The H/G ratio is comparable to the ISI score for predicting an increased risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Surgeons are recommended to consider other strategies to treat anterior shoulder instability if H/G ratio is ≥ 0.7.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Maximal Medical Improvement Following Shoulder Stabilization Surgery May Require up to 1 Year: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is increased emphasis on properly allocating healthcare resources to optimize value within orthopedic surgery. Establishing time to maximal medical improvement (MMI) can inform clinical decision-making and practice guidelines.

PURPOSE

We sought (1) to evaluate the time to MMI as predicted by commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for evaluation of shoulder stabilization and (2) to evaluate typical time to return to sports and employment following surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of the Medline database was conducted to identify outcome studies reporting sequential follow-up at multiple time points, up to a minimum of 2 years after shoulder stabilization surgery. The included studies examined the outcomes of arthroscopic or open surgical techniques on anterior instability. Clinically significant improvements were evaluated utilizing the minimal clinically important difference specific to each PROM. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, return to sport/work, and recurrent instability.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising 590 surgically managed cases of anterior shoulder instability were included (78% arthroscopic, 22% open). Clinically significant improvements in PROMs were achieved up to 1 year post-operatively for Rowe, Western Ontario Instability Index (WOSI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. For the three most utilized tools (Rowe, WOSI, ASES), the majority of improvement occurred in the first 6 post-operative months. Clinically significant improvements in Constant Score and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) were achieved up to 6 months and 2 years after surgery, respectively. No clinically significant improvements were achieved on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) tool.

CONCLUSION

Maximal medical improvement as determined by commonly utilized PROMs occurs by 1 year after operative management of anterior shoulder instability. The DASH tool does not appear to demonstrate a reliable time frame for clinically significant outcome improvement.

[Short-term effectiveness of arthroscopically capsular vertical mattress suturing for shoulder recurrent anterior dislocation combined with joint laxity]

Objective

To evaluate the short-term effectiveness of arthroscopically capsular vertical mattress suturing for shoulder recurrent anterior dislocation combined with joint laxity.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 6 shoulder recurrent anterior dislocation patients combined with joint laxity treated with arthroscopically capsular vertical mattress suturing between January 2017 and December 2018. There were 5 males and 1 female with an average age of 20.8 years (range, 19-24 years). The number of shoulder dislocation was 3-18 times, with an average of 9.5 times. The disease duration ranged from 2 to 60 months, with an average of 25.3 months. The preoperative Beighton score was 4-7, with an average of 5.8; the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) was 2-5, with an average of 3.5. There were 5 cases of simple Bankart injury and 1 case of bony Bankart injury. The range of motion of shoulder joint (including active flexion and lifting, external rotation, abduction and external rotation, and internal ratation) was recorded before operation and at last follow-up; Oxford shoulder instability score, Rowe shoulder instability score, and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score were used to evaluate shoulder joint function before operation, at 6 months after operation, and at last follow-up, and complications were recorded.

Results

All patients were followed up 16-28 months (mean, 19.3 months). During the follow-up, all patients had satisfactory motor function, and no re-dislocation and postoperative neurovascular complications occurred. At last follow-up, the activities of active external rotation and abduction and external rotation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); the activities of active flexion and lifting and internal rotation were not limited before and after operation, and the difference was not significant ( P>0.05). The Oxford shoulder instability score, Rowe shoulder instability score, and SST score at 6 months after operation and at last follow-up were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between at 6 months after operation and at last follow-up ( P>0.05).

Conclusion

The treatment of shoulder recurrent anterior dislocation combined with joint laxity by arthroscopically vertical matress suturing can achieve good short-term effectiveness.

First-time Glenohumeral Dislocations: Current Evidence and Considerations in Clinical Decision Making

The decision to manage first-time shoulder dislocations conservatively or operatively has become increasingly complex because of conflicting literature. Although shoulder dislocations have traditionally been managed with reduction and immobilization, recent evidence has suggested high rates of subsequent recurrence. Surgical intervention is thought to better restore stability and decrease recurrence rates; however, it also has the potential for additional morbidity and financial cost. As such, recent literature has sought to better define patient risk profiles to identify optimal candidates for both conservative and operative management. The purpose of the current review is to provide a comprehensive and evidence-based assessment of the most recent literature to better delineate an appropriate treatment algorithm for this challenging clinical scenario.

Comparison of Interface Pressure, Contact Surface Area, and Percent Area of Coverage Between Two Suture Configurations for Hill-Sachs Remplissage

Purpose:

To compare maximum contact pressure, contact surface area, and the percent area of coverage of the bone-tendon interface in the remplissage procedure between two different suture configurations (independent mattress versus double-pulley).

Methods:

A sample size of seven specimens per group was defined by a 96% power analysis.

Hill-Sachs lesions were created in all fourteen ex vivo ovine shoulders, corresponding to a 30% defect of the axial diameter of the humeral head (significant lesion according to literature). The defects were repaired using the remplissage technique applying one of the two randomly chosen suture configurations: two independent mattress sutures or a double-pulley. The contact pressure and contact surface area, as well as percent defect coverage, were recorded using a film sensitive to these parameters. Independent nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney) were used for the statistical analysis.

Results:

The double-pulley group exhibited an average pressure of 0.128 ± 0.018 mPa, the contact surface of 0.199 ± 0.044 cm2, and 41.97 ± 9.8% defect coverage. The independent mattress group showed an average pressure of 0.102 ± 0.01 mPa, the contact surface of 0.081 ± 0.041 cm2, and defect coverage of 15.6 ± 8.1%. All three parameters were statistically superior in the double-pulley group (p=0.038, p=0.008, and p=0.008, respectively)

Conclusion:

The remplissage technique using the double-pulley configuration, presented superior biomechanical characteristics, in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and percent coverage of the defect, compared to the simple independent mattress configuration.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus Latarjet procedure for management of engaging Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss in traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) with subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL) is approached through either increasing the glenoid arc by the Latarjet procedure or converting the HSL to an extra-articular defect by arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (BRR). Until now, there has been no evidence-based consensus about which of these 2 most appropriate procedures is the better surgical choice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the current literature comparing results of BRR vs. the Latarjet procedure in the treatment of engaging HSLs with subcritical GBL.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was completed for studies that compared the clinical outcomes and complications of BRR vs. the Latarjet procedure with minimum follow-up of 2 years. The outcome measures analyzed included postoperative Rowe score, visual analog scale pain score, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and rates of recurrent instability and other complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 articles (level III evidence in 3 and level II in 1) were included from an initial 804 abstracts. The study population consisted of a total of 379 patients, of whom 194 underwent BRR and 185 underwent the Latarjet procedure. There were no unacceptable differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. For the rate of recurrent instability, both groups had comparable risk ratios (RRs) (N = 379; RR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.41). The risk of other complications was significantly increased with the Latarjet procedure (by about 7 times) relative to the the BRR procedure (N = 379; RR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2-27). Both groups had comparable postoperative Rowe scores (n = 190; mean difference [MD], -0.9; 95% CI, -3.45 to 1.7) and visual analog scale pain scores (n = 347; MD, -0.2; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.2). Moreover, both groups had comparable postoperative external rotation ROM (MD, -1.7°; 95% CI, -9.4° to 6°) and internal rotation ROM (MD, 1.95°; 95% CI, -5.35° to 9.25°). There was substantial heterogeneity in the effect of both procedures on postoperative pain and ROM (external rotation and internal rotation).

CONCLUSION

Both the BRR and Latarjet procedures are effective for the management of engaging HSLs with subcritical GBL and give comparable clinical outcomes. However, given the fewer overall postoperative complications, remplissage may be safer. The results of the included studies were adequately consistent for most analyzed outcomes. However, for the intervention effect on postoperative pain and ROM, there was a small body of evidence, limiting the strength of the reported conclusions.

Editorial Commentary: Evidence to Support Surgical Intervention for First-Time Shoulder Instability: Stabilize Them Early!

Historically, a primary anterior instability event has been treated nonoperatively. In the literature, a multitude of outcome scores and definitions for recurrence of instability complicates the interpretation and synthesis of evidence-based recommendations. However, there is an emerging body of high-quality evidence that early surgical stabilization yields better overall outcomes. A wait-and-see approach would be acceptable if it was without detrimental effects, but there is a cost to recurrence of instability events, such as more extensive soft-tissue, cartilage, and bony lesions. Young age, male sex, and contact sport participation have been identified as risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability, and today, these patients are routinely recommended surgical treatment. It is also paramount to identify concomitant injury following the primary anterior instability event. The sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of radiographs is suboptimal, and the threshold to obtain advanced imaging such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with 3-dimensional reconstructions should be low. Taking into account the low non-recurrence complication rate following arthroscopic stabilization, early surgical intervention should be considered following the first instability event.

When to Abandon the Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Bone loss is a major factor in determining surgical choice in patients with anterior glenohumeral instability. Although bone loss has been described, there is no consensus on glenoid, humeral head, and bipolar bone loss limits for which arthroscopic-only management with Bankart repair can be performed.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for selecting a more complex repair or reconstruction (in lieu of arthroscopic-only Bankart repair) in the setting of glenohumeral instability based on available literature.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of the literature for the period from 2000 to 2019 was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they quantified bone loss (humeral head or glenoid) in the setting of anterior instability treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, follow-up, recurrence rates, and measures of bone loss (glenoid, humeral head, bipolar).

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 measured glenoid bone loss, 5 measured humeral head bone loss, and 2 measured "tracking" without explicit measurement of humeral head bone loss. Measurement techniques for glenoid and humeral head bone loss varied widely. Recommendations for maximum glenoid bone loss for arthroscopic repair were largely <15% of glenoid width in recent studies. Recommendations regarding humeral head loss were more variable (many authors providing only qualitative descriptions) with increasing attention on glenohumeral tracking.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that a standardized method of glenoid and humeral head bone loss measurements be performed preoperatively to assess which patients will have successful stabilization after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Glenoid bone loss should be <15%, and humeral head lesions should be "on track" if an arthroscopic-only Bankart is planned. If there is greater bone loss, adjunct or open procedures should be performed.

Comparison of the clinical results of isolated Bankart and SLAP 5 lesions after arthroscopic repair

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients with traumatic isolated Bankart lesions and type V superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions after arthroscopic repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability were evaluated retrospectively between December 2014 and January 2019. Fifty-one patients (49 males, 2 females; mean age 25 years; range, 18 to 36 years) without bone defects affecting >20% of the glenoid fossa, off-track engaging Hills-Sachs lesions, multidirectional instability, or ligamentous laxity were included in the study. Group 1 had 31 patients with isolated Bankart lesions and group 2 had 20 patients with type V SLAP lesions. There were only two female patients in group 1 and all patients were male in group 2. The mean age was 25 years (range, 18 to 36 years) in group 1 and 25 years (range, 19 to 35 years) in group 2. Rowe, Constant, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) scoring systems were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes of the patients preoperatively and at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 32 months (range, 12 to 48 months) in group 1 and 28.5 months (range, 12 to 42 months) in group 2. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the number of shoulder dislocations before the surgery, mean age at the time of surgery, and the mean time from the first dislocation to surgical treatment. When the Rowe, Constant, and WOSI scores were evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up, there were statistically significant changes within, but not between, the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In type V SLAP lesions, the affected and repaired labrum surface area is larger than isolated Bankart lesions. However, as a result of appropriate surgical treatment, the affected surface area does not have a negative effect on clinical outcomes, and similar clinical results can be obtained in patients with type V SLAP lesions compared to patients with isolated Bankart lesions.

A single-institution analysis of factors affecting costs in the arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability

Background

Although surgical shoulder stabilization is a substantial cost nationally within the United States, little information exists to analyze this cost. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with variation in direct costs with the arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of all patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability between January 12, 2012 and July 11, 2017. Patient and procedure factors were collected. Direct perioperative costs were collected using a validated internal tool. Patient and procedure characteristics significantly associated with costs were identified using multivariate generalized linear models.

Results

The study included 302 patients, of whom 12% were undergoing revision and 32% were contact or collision athletes. Anterior instability was present in 73%, whereas 14% had posterior and 10% had multidirectional instability. Of the patients, 67% were recurrent dislocators and 33% were first-time dislocators or subluxators. Remplissage was performed in 13%; biceps tenodesis, 5%; and rotator cuff repair, 3%. An average of 4.0 ± 1.4 anchors were used. Of costs, 39% were operative facility utilization costs and 41% were implant costs. Factors associated with cost increase included an increased number of anchors (P < .0001), posterior vs. anterior instability (P = .001), recurrent instability vs. first-time dislocation (P = .025), remplissage (P = .006), rotator interval closure (P = .021), bicep tenodesis (P = .020), rotator cuff repair (P < .0001), an inpatient stay (P = .003), and repair of humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments (P = .012).

Conclusion

Most perioperative costs associated with the arthroscopic treatment of glenohumeral instability are facility utilization and implant costs. Nonmodifiable factors associated with increased cost included posterior direction of instability and recurrent instability. Modifiable factors included additional procedures and inpatient stay.

Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization in the young athlete: return to sport and revision stabilization rates

BACKGROUND

Shoulder instability in young athletes is a complex problem with higher recurrence, higher reoperation, and lower return to sport (RTS) rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization compared with adults.

METHODS

This is a prospective case series of young athletes with anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic stabilization surgery. Primary outcomes were RTS and revision surgery, minimum follow-up was 24 months. Exclusion criteria were more than 3 preoperative episodes of instability, significant bone loss, or primary posterior instability. Demographic data, recurrent instability, revision surgery, sports pre- and postsurgery, patient satisfaction, level of RTS, time to RTS, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven athletes met inclusion criteria, 19 females and 48 males, with a mean age of 17.5 years (range, 13-21 years). Fifty-nine (88%) athletes returned to sport at an average of 7.1 months (standard deviation, ±1.8); 50 (75%) returned to the same level or higher. Football and lacrosse were the most common sports. Four of 67 athletes (6%), all male, underwent revision stabilization at 11-36 months for recurrent instability. The overall mean SANE score was 88.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that when the high-risk athlete, 21 years old or younger, is appropriately selected for arthroscopic shoulder stabilization by excluding those with 3 or more preoperative shoulder instability episodes and those with off-track and engaging instability patterns, excellent outcomes can be achieved with low revision surgery rates, high RTS rates, and high patient satisfaction.

Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization for a First-Time Anterior Dislocation of the Shoulder: Long-Term Follow-up of a Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

METHODS

Eighty-eight patients with an age of ≤35 years who had sustained a primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation were enrolled in a single-center, double-blinded clinical trial. Subjects were randomized to receive either an arthroscopic washout (AWO) or ABR. Participants were reassessed after a minimum of 10 years postoperatively. Data regarding recurrent instability, revision surgery, satisfaction, and function (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI]) scores were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (74%; 32 in the AWO group and 33 in the ABR group) were included and had an average follow-up of 14.2 years (range,12 to 16 years). The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the AWO group than the ABR group (47% and 12%, respectively; p = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for event-free survival using recurrent instability and/or revision surgery as clinical end points. This analysis demonstrated a sustained significant difference between the groups at 10 years after surgery (58% for the AWO group versus 79% for the ABR group; log-rank test [Mantel-Cox]; p = 0.018). Long-term WOSI scores were significantly better in the ABR group. The presence of recurrent instability was associated with significantly poorer WOSI and DASH scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a long-term benefit in overall shoulder stability and functional outcome in high-risk patients who have undergone ABR for first-time anterior dislocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Postoperative Recurrence of Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulders With Primary Instability Compared With Recurrent Instability: Influence of Bipolar Bone Defect Size

BACKGROUND

In shoulders with traumatic anterior instability, a bipolar bone defect has recently been recognized as an important indicator of the prognosis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of bipolar bone defects on postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair performed at primary instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 45 patients (45 shoulders) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at primary instability before recurrence and were followed for at least 2 years. The control group consisted of 95 patients (95 shoulders) with recurrent instability who underwent Bankart repair and were followed for at least 2 years. Glenoid defects and Hill-Sachs lesions were classified into 5 size categories on 3-dimensional computed tomography and were allocated scores ranging from 0 for no defect to 4 for the largest defect. The shoulders were classified according to the total score for both lesions (0-8 points). The postoperative recurrence rate was investigated for each score of bipolar bone defects and was compared between patients with primary instability and patients with recurrent instability. The same analysis was performed for the age at operation (<20 years, 20-29 years, or ≥30 years) and for the presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion.

RESULTS

Bipolar bone defects were smaller in shoulders with primary instability (mean ± SD defect score, 1.4 ± 1.5 points) than in those with recurrent instability (3.6 ± 1.9 points) and were larger in older patients than in younger patients at the time of primary instability. The postoperative recurrence rate was low (6.7%) in shoulders with primary instability regardless of the size of the bipolar bone defect and the patient's age, whereas the postoperative recurrence rate was high (23.2%) in shoulders with recurrent instability, especially among patients younger than 20 years with bipolar bone defects of 2 points or greater. An off-track Hill-Sachs lesion was found in only 1 patient in the oldest age group (2.2%) at primary instability, but it was found in 19 patients (20%) at recurrent instability, including 14 patients younger than 30 years. Among patients with an off-track lesion, the postoperative recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients younger than 20 years with recurrent instability (recurrence rates: <20 years, 71.4%; 20-29 years, 14.3%; ≥30 years, 0%).

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate was consistently low in patients with primary instability and was significantly influenced by bipolar bone defect size and patient age in patients with recurrent instability.

Instability severity index score values below 7 do not predict recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) in predicting an increased recurrence risk after an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a cohort of patients operated in three different centres. The inclusion criteria (recurrent anterior instability [dislocation or subluxation] with or without hyperlaxity, arthroscopic Bankart repair) and the exclusion criteria (concomitant rotator cuff lesion, acute first-time dislocation, surgery after a previous anterior stabilization, surgery for an unstable shoulder without true dislocation or subluxation; multidirectional instability) were those used in the study that defined the ISIS score. The medical records and a telephone interview were used to identify the six variables that define the ISIS and identify recurrences.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three shoulders met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 140 subjects (22 females/118 males; mean age 35.5 ± 7.9) with 142 (89.0%) shoulders were available for follow-up after 5.3 (1.1) (range 3.1-7.4) years. There were 20 recurrences (14.1%). The mean (SD) preoperative ISIS was 1.8 (1.6) in the patients without recurrence and 1.8 (1.9) in the patients with recurrence (n.s.). In the 117 subjects with ISIS between 0 and 3 the recurrence rate was 12.8%; in the 25 with ISIS 4 to 6 the rate was 20% (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

For subjects with anterior shoulder instability in which an arthroscopic Bankart repair is being considered, the use of the ISIS, when the values obtained are ≤ 6 was not useful to predict an increased recurrence risk in the midterm in this retrospectively evaluated case series. The efficacy of the ISIS score in defining a group of subjects with a preoperative increased risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart instability repair is limited in lower risk populations (with ISIS scores ≤ 6).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Biomechanical Comparison of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Versus Conjoint Tendon Transfer in a Bone Loss Shoulder Instability Model

Background:

Augmentation of Bankart repair with long head of the biceps tendon transfer has been previously described, although there is a paucity of literature describing its biomechanical effects.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of augmenting Bankart repair with either the conjoint tendon or the long head of the biceps tendon, both with and without subcritical (13%) glenoid bone loss. We hypothesized that, in a cadaveric model, augmenting Bankart repair with the long head of the biceps tendon would restore a greater degree of stability compared with augmenting Bankart repair with the conjoint tendon.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 12 cadaveric shoulders were tested on a 6-degrees-of-freedom robotic musculoskeletal simulator to measure the peak resistance force due to an anterior displacement of 1 cm. The rotator cuff muscles were loaded during testing to simulate physiological conditions. The following test conditions were used for each specimen: (1) intact shoulder, (2) Bankart lesion with 13% anterior bone loss, (3) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair (anchors placed at the 3-, 4-, and 5-o’clock positions), (4) 13% bone loss with both Bankart repair and transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon, and (5) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair and transfer of the conjoint tendon.

Results:

Labral repair with the addition of long head of the biceps tendon transfer had the greatest peak resistance force to anterior displacement among all groups (54.1 ± 5.5 N) and was significantly stronger than both standard Bankart repair by 16.3% (46.5 ± 7.6 N; P = .039) and the conjoint transfer procedure by 16.6% (46.4 ± 7.7 N; P = .008).

Conclusion:

Given the susceptibility of recurrent instability in shoulders with subcritical bone loss after isolated labral repair, it is important to consider augmenting Bankart repair in high-risk patients to avoid potential recurrence and the need for reoperations. Transferring the long head of the biceps tendon to the anterior glenoid represents one possible augmentation.

Clinical Relevance:

We present biomechanical data for a relatively novel technique for augmenting capsulolabral repair strength in an anterior instability model with subcritical bone loss. These data represent biomechanical justification for the utilization of this relatively novel technique.

Open Shoulder Stabilization for Instability: Anterior Labral Repair With Capsular Shift

Although anterior shoulder instability is most commonly treated with arthroscopic fixation, open labral repair with capsular shift may be best for select patients and in cases of revision stabilization without significant bone loss. The technique described in this article uses the deltopectoral interval; it involves careful dissection of the subscapularis from the anterior capsule, repair of the Bankart lesion, and a lateral and superior capsular shift using all-suture anchors in the humeral head. Advantages of this technique include meticulous control of anchor placement and the ability to provide additional stability via a lateral and superiorly directed capsular shift. This operation can be performed in a reliable, efficient, and reproducible manner.