Is the Instability Severity Index Score a Valid Tool for Predicting Failure After Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability?

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise.

METHODS

This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%.

CONCLUSION

ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

RESULTS

Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a 2-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171 of 634) for patients <20 years old compared with 13.3% (197 of 1485) for older patients (P < .001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (odds ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29 of 156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors, compared with 18.1% (89 of 491) with 3 or more anchors (P = .06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior tear (0%).

CONCLUSION

Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Patients Have a 15% Redislocation Rate After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With a Knotless Technique

Purpose

To evaluate the redislocation rate after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) with a standardized knotless anchor technique in a consecutive series of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent ABR by a single surgeon between January 2008 and December 2018 with a minimum follow up of 2 years. We collected data through phone interviews, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and review of patient records. The primary outcome was redislocation and secondary outcomes were recurrent subluxations, reoperation, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, and functional outcomes. We also performed survival analysis and risk factor analysis.

Results

Of 88 patients (91 shoulders) who underwent ABR during the inclusion period, 70 patients (73 shoulders) were included (follow-up rate 80%). The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (range 2-12 years). Redislocation occurred in 15% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8%-25.4%) of patients at a mean of 41 months after surgery (range 6-115 months). The reoperation rate for recurrent redislocation was 4.1%. Overall, 90.4% reported being currently satisfied with their shoulder and the mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score at follow-up was 73.8% (range 8.3%-99.9%). Patients with redislocation were younger at primary operation than patients with no redislocation (mean 21 years vs 28 years; P = .023) and adjusted hazard ratio for age was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74-0.99; P = .033). It was more common to have less than 3 anchors in patients with redislocation (P = .024), but adjusted hazard ratio was 4.42 (95% CI 0.93-21.02; P = .061).

Conclusions

The redislocation rate after ABR with a standardized knotless anchor technique in a consecutive series of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability was found to be 15% after a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean 7.5).

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case-series.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet reconstruction in anterior shoulder instability

PURPOSE

The ideal surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability is still under debate. In the healthcare setting, both clinical and economic factors must be considered for optimal resource allocation. From the clinical perspective, the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) is a helpful and validated tool for surgeons, although a gray area between 4 and 6 exists. In fact, patients with an ISIS < 4 and > 6 can be treated effectively with arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet, respectively. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6.

METHODS

A decision-tree model was constructed to simulate the clinical scenario of an anterior shoulder dislocation patient with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Based on previously published literature, outcome probabilities and utility values in the form of Western Ontario Instability Score (WOSI) were assigned to each branch of the tree, alongside institutional cost. The primary outcome assessed was an Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the two procedures. Eden-Hybbinette was also considered in the model as a salvage procedure for failed Latarjet. A two-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the most impactful parameters on the ICER upon their variation within a pre-determined interval.

RESULTS

Base case cost was 1245.57 € (1220.48-1270.65 €) for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1623.10 € (1580.82-1665.39 €) for open Latarjet and 2.373.95 € (1940.81-2807.10 €) for Eden-Hybbinette. Base-case ICER was 9570.23 €/WOSI. Sensitivity analysis showed that the most impactful parameters were the utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair, the probability of success of open Latarjet, the probability of undergoing surgery after post-operative recurrence of instability and the utility of Latarjet. Of these, utility of arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet had the most significant impact on the ICER.

CONCLUSION

From a hospital perspective, open Latarjet was more cost-effective than arthroscopic Bankart repair in preventing further shoulder instability in patients with an ISIS between 4 and 6. Despite its several limitations, this is the first study to analyze this subgroup of patients from a European hospital setting from both an economic and clinical perspective. This study can help surgeons and administrations in the decision-making process. Further clinical studies are needed to prospectively analyze both aspects to further delineate the best strategy.

Arthroscopic Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using Either Long Head of the Biceps or Conjoined Tendon Transfer for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in a Similarly Low Recurrence Rate

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) between transferring the long head of the biceps (DAS-LHB) and the conjoined tendon (DAS-CT) for anterior shoulder instability with <15% glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

From January 2016 to May 2019, a total of 63 patients who underwent DAS for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with <15% glenoid bone loss were included, comprising 33 patients in DAS-LHB group and 30 patients in DAS-CT group. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at a minimum 3-year follow-up, including patient-reported outcomes, range of motion, and return to sports (RTS). Postoperative recurrent instability (including dislocation, subluxation, and subjective instability with a positive apprehension test), revisions and complications also were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant demographic characteristics difference was detected between the DAS-LHB (26.3 ± 7.9 years) and DAS-CT groups (26.0 ± 6.7 years). At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in functional scores: Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (14.8 ± 2.8 vs 15.2 ± 3.6), Rowe score (95.9 ± 6.5 vs 93.2 ± 10.2), visual analog scale for pain (0.8 ± 1.2 vs 0.7 ± 1.7), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (95 ± 8.8 vs 95.2 ± 9.1) (all P > .218). No significant difference was detected between groups in the rates of RTS (90.1% vs 86.7%, P = .700) and RTS at previous level (78.7% vs 73.3%, P = .258), respectively. No recurrent dislocation occurred in either group. One patient felt occasional subluxation in the DAS-LHB group, and one was positive for the apprehension test in each group. One patient presented with postoperative shoulder stiffness and underwent a secondary arthroscopic debridement in the DAS-CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable rates of recurrence, complication, return to sports, and subjective shoulder function were observed between DAS-LHB and DAS-CT groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Ⅲ; retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Is preoperative glenoid defect size a reliable indicator of postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair in teenage competitive athletes?

BACKGROUND

Being younger than 20 years of age at the time of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is known to be one of the most important risk factors for postoperative recurrence of instability. When deciding on the appropriate surgical approach, surgeons generally consider only the size of a critical glenoid defect, and most of them do not take into account factors such as the size of bone fragments and possible bone union after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair (ABBR). Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to clarify the risk factors for postoperative recurrence after ABR in teenage competitive athletes by focusing on glenoid rim morphologies and bone union.

METHODS

Participants were 115 teenage competitive athletes without a capsular injury who underwent primary ABR for chronic traumatic anterior instability and were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Possible risk factors for postoperative recurrence were investigated by univariate and multivariate analysis. In shoulders with a glenoid defect and bone fragment, the influence of glenoid defect size and bone fragment size on bone union after ABBR was also investigated.

RESULTS

Postoperative recurrence was seen in 16 patients (13.9%). Regarding glenoid defect size, recurrence was seen in 1 (3.2%) of 31 shoulders with a glenoid defect smaller than 5% (including those with a normal glenoid), 15 (22.1%) of 68 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 5%-20%, and 0 (0%) of 16 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 20% or larger (P = .009). Regarding bone union, recurrence was seen in 4 (6.9%) of 58 shoulders with complete or partial bone union after ABBR and 8 (40%) of 20 shoulders with nonunion or disappearance of the bone fragment (P = .001). Regarding bone fragment size, recurrence was seen in 12 (20.7%) of 58 shoulders with a small or no bone fragment (<7.5%) and in 3 (8.6%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P = .154). Multivariate analysis identified non-union or disappearance of the bone fragment after ABBR as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Complete or partial bone union was seen in 25 (58.1%) of 43 shoulders with a small bone fragment (<7.5%) and 33 (94.3%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In teenage competitive athletes, bone union after ABBR affects postoperative recurrence after ABR, regardless of the preoperative glenoid defect size, and bone union rate after ABBR is significantly influenced by bone fragment size.

Anterior glenoid rim erosion in the early stage after arthroscopic Bankart repair affects postoperative recurrence

Background

Recent studies reported that anterior glenoid rim erosion can occur in the early period after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. However, it is unknown whether such erosion is a risk factor for postoperative recurrence. This study evaluated risk factors for postoperative recurrence after ABR, specifically aiming to elucidate whether reduction of postoperative glenoid width due to anterior glenoid rim erosion is one of such factors.

Methods

A total of 220 shoulders that underwent ABR alone between 2013 and 2020 were retrospectively investigated. Patient age at surgery, whether the patient was a collision/contact athlete, anchor placement, preoperative glenoid bone defect (%), localization of the Hill-Sachs lesion, and change of glenoid width (%) in the 6 months after surgery were investigated for their statistical relation to recurrence by univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

Postoperative recurrence occurred in 32 of 220 shoulders (14.5%). In univariate analysis, being a collision/contact athlete was the only variable with a significant effect on recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 2.555; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.123-5.814; P = .03). Change of glenoid width reduction was larger in those with recurrence than without recurrence, but the difference was not statistically significant (-7.0 ± 6.6% vs. -5.0 ± 9.3%; P = .14). However, in multivariate logistic analysis, preoperative glenoid bone defect (%) (adjusted unit OR, 1.076; 95% CI, 1.018-1.137; P = .010) and postoperative change of glenoid width (%) (adjusted unit OR, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.900-0.994; P = .028) had a significant influence on postoperative recurrence.

Conclusion

Glenoid width reduction due to anterior glenoid rim erosion after ABR is a risk factor for recurrence.

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.

Sex-specific differences in outcomes after anterior shoulder surgical stabilization: a meta-analysis and systematic review of literature

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet as a primary operative treatment for traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Objectives

To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males.

Design

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland.

Participants

122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16–25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised.

Interventions

Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI.

Results

91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01998048.

Decreased motion with normal strength after Latarjet procedure has minimal impact on return to activity

PURPOSE

The Latarjet procedure can affect the range of motion (ROM) and strength of the shoulder, which determine the time to return to the preinjury level of activity. This study prospectively assessed whether the Latarjet procedure leads to a decrease in range of motion and muscle strength, affecting the time to return to the previous level of activity.

METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure for recurrent dislocation of the shoulder were included prospectively. The ROM, strength, Walch-Duplay score, and Rowe score were measured every 3 months for 1 year and then every 6 months for 2 years. Radiological assessments were performed to confirm the graft location, union, and the humeral head position in abduction and external rotation (ER).

RESULTS

Out of 51 patients, 49 completed all follow-ups. The median age was 27 years (17-45 years), and the dominant side was involved in 36 patients. The median number of dislocations was 11 (5-50). Twelve patients were sleep dislocators. There was a significant loss (p < 0.0001) of abduction, forward flexion (FF), ER, and internal rotation (IR) in the affected shoulder compared to the contralateral shoulder. Recovery plateaued at 12 months. There was near complete recovery of muscle strength after the Latarjet procedure, and the difference between the affected and contralateral shoulders was not significant (n.s.). The modified Rowe score was excellent in 44 (90%) patients, and the Walch-Duplay score was excellent in 43 patients (88%) at 24 months. Suboptimal results were associated with non-compliance with rehabilitation in two (4%) patients and neglected unreduced dislocation in one (2%) patient. The coracoid graft position was below the equator in 44 patients (90%). Forty-six patients (94%) could return to the previous level of activity.

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure results in a restricted ROM of the shoulder, but there is no loss of muscle strength.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

[Shoulder instability: review of current concepts of diagnosis and treatment]

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of modern literature data on the modern approaches in diagnosis and treatment of shoulder instability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searching for literature data was performed using the Pubmed and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed the results of conservative treatment of patients with shoulder instability and emphasized higher risk of instability recurrence, degeneration of anatomical structures and functional impairment in these patients. Surgery is advisable to restore shoulder stability and normalize its function. Several methods for stabilizing the shoulder have been proposed.

The approaches to diagnosis and treatment of shoulder instability have been updated.

CONCLUSION

Successful treatment of shoulder instability is based on qualitative and complete assessment of soft tissues and bone structures. An individual approach considering bone tissue deficiency and individual needs of the patient is required.

Editorial Commentary: Should We Condemn the Shoulder Instability Severity Index Scoring System? Not at All!... Can We Improve Its Radiographic Component? Yes, We Can!

Is patient selection necessary in shoulder instability surgery? Absolutely. The risk-benefit discussion that the surgeon must have with the patient before proposing an arthroscopic Bankart repair remains crucial to provide informed consent. The most important preoperative risk factors are incorporated in the instability severity index (ISI) score to assist surgeons in the decision-making process. This 10-point score is based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and simple plain radiographs. Using this score at the first visit, the surgeon can explain to the patient and family why a Bankart repair may be contraindicated and why other surgical options may be more suitable. A recent study found that the ISI score has no limited predictive value when applied in a preselected population of military patients without severe bone loss or hyperlaxity. This is not surprising because the authors analyzed a preselected patient population with lower risk than the general population. The value of the ISI scoring system relies on the fact that this tool has been developed after evaluation of arthroscopic Bankart repair in an unselected patient population and that there is no need for sophisticated imaging studies to make the decision. This scoring system should not be condemned but complemented with preoperative advanced imaging studies (computed tomography [CT] scanning or magnetic resonance imaging) to assess the severity of the bone lesions more accurately. Today, the choice of the surgical procedure depends not only on the clinical risk factors included in the ISI score (age, type of sports, level of practice, hyperlaxity) but also on the presence, location and size of bony lesions, as identified and measured on advanced CT scanning images.

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).

Editorial Commentary: Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: What the Instability Severity Index Score Will and Will Not Predict

The recurrence of shoulder instability is a challenging complication after anterior open or arthroscopic stabilization in patients with glenohumeral instability. Use of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure has increased over the last decade, because of its less invasiveness and low complication rates compared with the Latarjet procedure. However, arthroscopic repair has the possibility of a greater recurrent instability rate. The Instability Shoulder Index Score (ISIS) has been developed to predict the success of isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair for the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The risk factors associated with the recurrence of instability are age, level and type of sports participation, shoulder hyperlaxity, and humeral and glenoid bony lesions. The ISIS is a validated tool to predict the recurrence of dislocation after arthroscopic surgery in patients with shoulder instability. The arthroscopic Bankart procedure can be performed in patients with ISIS ≤3 with a low risk of recurrence of glenohumeral instability. The Latarjet procedure should be recommended in patients with ISIS >6. The management of patients with ISIS between 4 and 6 is still controversial and ranges from arthroscopic Bankart procedure with the addition of remplissage to the Latarjet procedure. Because advanced imaging techniques, such as computed tomography scans, allow us to assess appropriately the glenoid and humeral bone defect, their use is recommended in addition to ISIS.

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.

Excellent Clinical and Radiological Midterm Outcomes for the Management of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability by All-Arthroscopic Modified Eden-Hybinette Procedure Using Iliac Crest Autograft and Double-Pair Button Fixation System: 3-Year Clinical Case Series With No Loss to Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological midterm outcomes of the all-arthroscopic modified Eden-Hybinette procedure in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center case series with prospectively collected data was conducted. The inclusion criterion was traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with significant glenoid bone loss; patients with atraumatic or multidirectional instability were excluded. An all-arthroscopic modified Eden-Hybinette procedure using iliac crest autograft and double-pair button fixation was carried out. All patients were postoperatively assessed for recurrence and apprehension. Shoulder range of motion values and functional scores, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, Oxford instability, Rowe instability, and Walch-Dupplay, were recorded. Graft positions, healing, and absorption were evaluated with computed tomography. Comparisons of values were performed with paired t tests for normally distributed differences and with nonparametric Wilcoxon's signed rank test otherwise.

RESULTS

The final study cohort included 28 patients, mean age 36 ± 10 years, and mean follow-up period 43 ± 6 months (range 36 to 53). Median glenoid bone loss was 12.4% (range 8% to 33%). No recurrence occurred, no subjective shoulder instability was reported, and no major complications were documented through the last follow-up. Postoperative shoulder range of motion had no significant differences compared with the healthy side. All final postoperative functional scores significantly increased to show excellent results compared with preoperative values. All grafts were positioned and healed optimally, and none was completely reabsorbed.

CONCLUSIONS

The all-arthroscopic modified Eden-Hybinette procedure is safe, leading to excellent clinical and radiological midterm outcomes in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. This technique restores glenoid bone defects and preserves the normal shoulder anatomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, therapeutic, retrospective case series.

A lower Instability Severity Index score threshold may better predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

Importance

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) score was developed to evaluate a patient’s risk of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. While patients with an ISI score of >6 were originally recommended to undergo an open procedure (ie, Latarjet) to minimise the risk of recurrence, recent literature has called into question the utility of the ISI score.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of the ISI score as a tool to predict postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart procedures.

Evidence review

Articles were included if study participants underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability and reported postoperative recurrence by ISI score at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Pearson’s χ2 test was used to compare recurrence rates among patients above and below an ISI score of 4. Sensitivity, specificity, mean ISI scores and predictive value of individual factors of the ISI score were qualitatively reviewed.

Findings

Four studies concluded the ISI score was effective in predicting postoperative recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair; however, these studies found threshold values lower than the previously proposed score of >6 may be more predictive of recurrent instability. A pooled analysis of these studies found patients with an ISI score <4 to experience significantly lower recurrence rates when compared with patients with a score ≥4 (6.3% vs 26.0%, p<0.0001). The mean ISI score among patients who experienced recurrent instability was also significantly higher than those who did not.

Conclusions and relevance

The ISI score as constructed by Balg and Boileau may have clinical utility to help predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, this review found the threshold values published in their seminal article to be insufficient predictors of recurrent instability. Instead, a lower score threshold may provide as a better predictor of failure. The paucity of level I and II investigations limits the strength of these conclusions, suggesting a need for further large, prospective studies evaluating the predictive ability of the ISI score.

Level of evidence

IV.

Editorial Commentary: The Shoulder Transpectoralis Portal for Arthroscopic Latarjet: Medial to the Coracoid Can Also Be a Safe Side!

The all-arthroscopic Latarjet is gaining popularity among shoulder surgeons, although the procedure is technically demanding and potentially dangerous, placing the brachial plexus and axillary vessels at risk when using screws for fixation of the bone block from the front. Matsen once wrote that "lateral to the coracoid is the safe side, while medial to the coracoid is the suicide." However, creation of a portal medial to the coracoid during arthroscopic reconstruction of the glenoid is needed to permit accurate positioning of the screws (parallel to the glenoid surface) and coracoid bone block (flush to the glenoid surface). Our own clinical experience with the arthroscopic Latarjet over the last decade has shown us that the safety of the arthroscopic medial transpectoralis portal depends on 3 technical considerations: (1) the portal should always be established in an outside-in fashion from anterior to posterior; (2) passing through the pectoralis major muscle with a relatively superficial trajectory, using a switching stick oriented with a 45° orientation toward the tip of the coracoid; and (3) under visual control of the anterior extra-articular subdeltoid space to end up lateral to the coracoid process. If these conditions are respected, surgeons should not worry: medial to the coracoid can also be a safe side! An inside-out technique (introducing a switching stick from posterior to anterior) is forbidden, as this would end up piercing the neurovascular structures. Once the coracoid has been osteotomized and the conjoint tendon retracted distally, all instruments passing though the transpectoral portal are directly in contact with the neurovascular structures. This is why working through the medial transpectoralis portal should be done only with the help of a cannula or half-pipe. Ideally, the transpectoral portal should not be used as a "working portal" but as a "protecting portal" instead, placing a stick or spreader to protect the neurovascular structures. To avoid working through the anterior medial portal, we have proposed a much safer alternative that consists of drilling the glenoid from posterior to anterior (using a guide and remaining inside the glenohumeral joint) and using cortical-buttons (instead of screws) for coracoid fixation. In this modern technique, the transpectoral portal makes the arthroscopic safe as it allows the introduction of a spreader to retract the subscapularis muscle and protect the neurovascular structures during transfer and fixation of the coracoid bone block.

Anterior glenohumeral instability: Current review with technical pearls and pitfalls of arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization

The glenohumeral joint (GHJ) allows for a wide range of motion, but is also particularly vulnerable to episodes of instability. Anterior GHJ instability is especially frequent among young, athletic populations during contact sporting events. Many first time dislocators can be managed non-operatively with a period of immobilization and rehabilitation, however certain patient populations are at higher risk for recurrent instability and may require surgical intervention for adequate stabilization. Determination of the optimal treatment strategy should be made on a case-by-case basis while weighing both patient specific factors and injury patterns (i.e., bone loss). The purpose of this review is to describe the relevant anatomical stabilizers of the GHJ, risk factors for recurrent instability including bony lesions, indications for arthroscopic vs open surgical management, clinical history and physical examination techniques, imaging modalities, and pearls/pitfalls of arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior glenohumeral instability.

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.

Immobilisation in external rotation after first-time traumatic anterior shoulder instability reduces recurrent instability: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Cadaveric and MRI findings have demonstrated significantly less labral separation and displacement when the shoulder is placed in external rotation as compared with internal rotation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current study is to meta-analyse the randomised controlled trials in the literature to compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation after first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included.

FINDINGS

Nine randomised controlled trials with 795 patients were included. The mean age of included patients was 29 years, 82.4% were male and the mean follow-up was 25.5 months. As compared with immobilisation in internal rotation, compliance was significantly higher (74.5% vs 67.4%, p=0.01), and the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower (22.2% vs 33.4%, p=0.02) with immobilisation in external rotation. Additionally, in patients 20-40 years old the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower in those treated with immobilisation in external rotation than internal rotation (12.1% vs 31.4%, p=0.006). Immobilisation in external rotation also resulted in a higher rate of return to preinjury level of play (60.1% vs 42.6%, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Immobilisation of the shoulder in external rotation after a traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation results in a higher compliance rate, a lower recurrent dislocation rate and a higher rate of return to play as compared with immobilisation in internal rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Hypothesis

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Open Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Chronic Anterior Glenohumeral Instability With Glenoid Bone Loss

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes of open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedures.

METHODS

Between December 2009 to January 2015, all patients older than 18 years of age who were treated with a Latarjet procedure for chronic osseous anterior instability by a single surgeon were included in this retrospective cohort study. Range of motion, strength, Rowe, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores, and pain level according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were evaluated. In addition, postoperative computed tomography scans were used to evaluate the position of the transferred coracoid, screw orientation, and degree of graft resorption.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients with a mean age of 29.5 years (range 19-59 years) who underwent open (n = 15; group OL) and arthroscopic (n = 33; group AL) Latarjet procedures were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 30.5 months (range 24-50 months). At final follow-up there were significant differences in the mean internal rotation loss (mean of 9° vs 14°, P = .044) favoring open surgery and WOSI (P = .017) scores favoring arthroscopic. No significant differences were detected in mean forward flexion loss (P = .918), external rotation loss (P = .883), Rowe (P = .429), and Visual Analog Scale (P = .208) scores. Mean superoinferior position of the coracoid bone graft was found between the 1:55 and 4:49 o'clock positions (2:05-4:55 for group OL; 1:51-4:47 for group AL) in en-face views. The grafts were placed laterally in 13% (group OL) and 9% (group AL) of patients. The mean α angles of the screws were 11° and 19.2°, respectively (P = .004). The mean graft resorption rates were 21% and 34% (P = .087), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Good functional results were obtained after both open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for the treatment of chronic osseous anterior shoulder instability. Comparative analysis showed small but statistically significant differences in internal rotation loss favoring open and in WOSI favoring arthroscopic techniques. All measured radiographic parameters were similar with the exception of a significant difference in alpha angle with improved screw position in open surgery. OL and AL techniques provide similar clinical and radiographic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Retrospective cohort study with comparison group.

Predicting Failure After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Analysis of a Statistical Model Using Anatomic Risk Factors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish and analyze a simplified scoring system based on anatomic imaging measurements to predict recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral repair.

METHODS

All patients undergoing primary arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair of the shoulder were reviewed. Patients were contacted and charts were reviewed for endpoint of recurrent instability and return to prior level of activity. Predictive variables for recurrent instability studied included age, sex, amount of glenoid bone loss, intact anterior articular arc (IAAA), glenohumeral tracking (off-track), contact sports and overhead sports participation.

RESULTS

540 patients met inclusion criteria and follow-up data with magnetic resonance imaging data were available for 337 shoulders. Average follow-up was 6.2 years(range 3.4-9.3 years). Symptomatic recurrent instability occurred in 102 patients (30.3%) and 68% of contacted patients returned to pre-injury activities. In univariate analysis, age under 21 years, off-track lesions, IAAA <150°, and glenoid bone loss (GBL) of 10% or greater displayed an increased risk of recurrent instability. Multivariable analysis showed these factors remained significant: age <21 (odds ratio [ratio] 2.37), off-track glenoid (OR 2.86), IAAA <150 (OR 3.90), and GBL ≥10% (OR 7.47). A scoring system assigning 1 point each for age and off-track lesions, 2 points for IAAA <150, and 4 points for GBL >10% yielded 79% sensitivity, 75% specificity, 58% positive predictive value, and 89% negative predictive value using a probability value of 20 percent for recurrent instability.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, recurrent shoulder instability following primary arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair was 30% in this series. Younger age, glenoid bone loss of 10% or more, IAAA <150° and off-track glenoid lesion conferred the greatest risk for postoperative instability. We propose a scoring system assigning 1 point for age, 1 point for off-track lesions, 2 points for IAAA <150, and 4 points for GBL >10%. This schema demonstrated moderate accuracy for predicting recurrent instability when using a cutoff threshold score above 2 points for failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Global Perspectives on Management of Shoulder Instability: Decision Making and Treatment

The glenohumeral joint is prone to instability. Patients with instability should have a physical examination. Imaging studies can provide additional information. Classification schemes that into account soft tissue pathology, neuromuscular control, bone loss, and activity level. An arthroscopic Bankart repair is the mainstay for unidirectional instability. Bone block procedures are indicated for patients with bone loss or a failed attempt at stabilization surgery. The arthroscopic Latarjet is a promising option for these patients. For patients with multidirectional instability, prolonged rehabilitation is indicated, followed by capsular plication or inferior capsular shift if instability is unresponsive to physical therapy.

Editorial Commentary: More Is Better? The 6-O'clock Anchor in Instability Surgery

Placing an anchor at the 6-o'clock position on the glenoid when performing an arthroscopic Bankart repair has been suggested by multiple authors as a potential key step in improving the outcomes of arthroscopic repair. Placement of a 6-o'clock anchor increases the peak resistance force to displacement over a traditional 3-anchor repair. Determining what technique issues are relevant remains problematic, and the ultimate preferred technique remains elusive.

All-Arthroscopic, 270° Reconstruction of the Inferior Glenohumeral Ligament With Palmaris Longus Autograft

Numerous factors play a role in anterior shoulder stability. The inferior glenohumeral ligament, especially the anterior band, is the main passive anterior stabilizer in the end range of motion. Surgical treatment of this pathology continues to be a challenge in patients with capsular deficiency, in whom the recurrence rate of soft-tissue arthroscopic repair increases significantly. There is not yet a fair solution for these patients without glenoid bone loss, in whom the poor tissue quality determines recurrent instability. We present an all-arthroscopic technique for reconstruction of the inferior glenohumeral ligament by means of palmaris longus autograft as an alternative to nonanatomic bone block procedures.

Editorial Commentary: Which Patients Are Likely to Undergo Redislocation After an Arthroscopic Bankart Repair? Preoperative Instability Severity Index Scoring Over 3 Points-The Game Is Over!

Risk factors for recurrent instability are present and identifiable preoperatively and can be incorporated into a severity scoring system to help with patient selection. The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score is a tool used to preoperatively identify patients at risk of failure after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. This 10-point score is also designed to help guide the treating surgeon's decision on whether a soft-tissue stabilization or bone block augmentation procedure is indicated. The ISI scoring system has been criticized for its lack of generalizability outside of the French health care system. However, evidence has emerged establishing the ISI Score as a valuable tool with excellent external validity. The ISI scoring system, based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and imaging studies, is helpful to distinguish between patients who will benefit from an arthroscopic Bankart procedure and those who will not. The higher the score, the higher the risk of recurrence of instability. Patients with an ISI Score of 3 points or less may attain very good results with an arthroscopic Bankart procedure compared with patients with an ISI Score of more than 3 points. Performing this procedure in patients with an ISI Score of more than 6 points leads to an increased risk of recurrence (≥50%) within 5 years and is totally inacceptable. We believe that the information gained from this scoring system will help surgeons in their daily practice to not only decide the right procedure for the right patient but also inform their patients preoperatively of the risks and benefits of an arthroscopic Bankart procedure. As such, the ISI Score is an important strategic tool for shoulder surgeons.