Arthroscopic Versus Open Bankart Repairs in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of the Association Between Publication Date and Postoperative Recurrent Instability in Systematic Reviews

Studies on Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability Show Poor Reporting of Data and Reflect Low Level of Evidence: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results were analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100 and gave each study a score out of 25 based on the Anterior Shoulder Instability (ASI) Methodology criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-six studies were included in the analysis and encompassed a total of 19,156 patients and 19,317 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. Overall, 81.6% of studies were Level III or IV evidence. The mean CMS score for the studies was 55.3 out of 100, and the mean ASI Methodology score for the studies was 12.1 out of 25. Weaknesses in the studies were identified in sample size, description of preoperative investigations and diagnoses, reporting of mean glenoid bone loss, nonsubjective clinical outcome reporting, and description of associated pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of studies reporting the clinical outcomes of Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability are of low methodological quality and have a low level of evidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study emphasizes need for greater reporting of many variables such as body mass index, mean glenoid bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes and provides a framework for future studies reporting.

Significant Increase in Early Reoperation After Latarjet-Bristow Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the 30-day outcomes, including length of stay, short-term complications, hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, and death after arthroscopic Bankart (AB) and Latarjet.

METHODS

Patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who had undergone either AB or Latarjet-Bristow (LB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability from 2012 to 2018 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to address any potential demographic differences. The 30-day incidence of postoperative complications were compared, and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors associated with the incidence of post-operative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 7,519 patients were identified, with 6,990 (93.0%) undergoing AB and 529 (7.0%) LB. After propensity score matching, the baseline demographics were not significantly different (P > .05). There was no significant difference in rate of total adverse events between the AB and LB cohorts (P = .06). There was a significant difference in the rate of return to the operating room between LB (1.9%) when compared to AB (0%) (P < .001). Of reoperations, 40% were due to need for revision stabilization (0.8% of all LB cases) and 40% were for irrigation and debridement. There was also a significant difference in operative time (AB = 87 minutes, LB = 131 minutes; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall 30-day complication rates were low for both groups, with similar rates among AB and LB patients. However, there was a statistically significant increased rate of short-term reoperation or revision stabilization in the LB cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

No Difference in Recurrent Instability Between Knotted and Knotless Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Treatment of Isolated Posterior Labral Tears: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To compare clinical failure, recurrent instability, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and return to sport (RTS) between knotted and knotless fixation methods in arthroscopic posterior labral repair for isolated posterior shoulder instability (PSI).

Methods

Multiple databases were queried according to Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies with Level I to IV evidence, including knotted and knotless suture anchors for arthroscopic posterior labral repair. Combined anterior and posterior instability, multidirectional instability, SLAP injuries, unspecified repair techniques, majority open procedures, and revision surgery were excluded.

Results

Screening yielded 17 full-text articles reporting on 852 shoulders undergoing posterior labral repair. Recurrent instability ranged from 0% to 21%, and the rate of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 11% in knotted only, 0% in knotless only, and 2.0% to 8.1% in knotted and knotless studies. Six studies with both pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores and 7 studies with both pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Score scores all showed improvement in scores after intervention regardless of repair technique. Thirteen studies reported RTS or duty rates with a minimum of 79%.

Conclusions

Overall recurrent instability after posterior labral repair for isolated PSI was low with improvement in PROMs and favorable RTS rates regardless of fixation method. There was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods for isolated posterior labral repair. However, the current literature is predominantly limited by Level III and IV evidence. The quality of literature and lack of standardization on the definition of clinical failure and recurrent instability among surgeons preclude any definitive conclusion regarding one clinically superior fixation method.

Level of Evidence

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

Arthroscopic shoulder suspensioplasty in painful hemiplegic shoulder subluxation-a case series

Background

Inferior glenohumeral subluxation (GHS) can cause disabling pain in hemiplegics. Conservative treatments have not been proven to be effective or maintained over time. A few studies have shown the benefits of surgical treatment. The objective of our study was to evaluate the medium-term clinical and radiological results of arthroscopic glenohumeral suspensioplasty surgery by biceps tenodesis in the setting of painful GHS in hemiplegics.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent arthroscopic glenohumeral suspensioplasty. The assessment, at a minimum of 1 year, included a clinical evaluation (pectoralis major spasticity, pain, range of motion, satisfaction) and a radiographic evaluation (Dursun classification, height of subacromial space).

Results

Five patients with a mean age of 51 years (36-72 years) were included at a mean follow-up of 40 months (12-70). Satisfaction was good in 80% of patients. Pain decreased in all patients, but not significantly. Four patients (80%) would repeat the procedure if it were necessary. In all patients, a reduction in GHS over time was observed, with a reduction in subacromial height, except in 1 patient who suffered a tenodesis rupture during a fall.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that arthroscopic glenohumeral suspensioplasty by biceps tenodesis may be a therapeutic option in hemiplegic patients with painful GHS.

Beach-Chair Versus Lateral Decubitus Positioning for Primary Arthroscopic Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Consecutive Series of 641 Shoulders

BACKGROUND

There are limited data comparing the beach-chair (BC) versus lateral decubitus (LD) position for arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization.

PURPOSE

To identify predictors of instability recurrence and revision after anterior shoulder stabilization and evaluate surgical position and glenoid bone loss as independent predictors of recurrence and revision at short- and midterm follow-ups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 641 arthroscopic anterior stabilization procedures were performed from 2005 to 2019. All shoulders were evaluated for glenohumeral bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and revision. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships of outcomes with age, position, glenoid bone loss group, and track.

RESULTS

A total of 641 shoulders with a mean age of 22.3 years (SD, 4.45 years) underwent stabilization and were followed for a mean of 6 years. The overall 1-year recurrent instability rate was 3.3% (21/641) and the revision rate was 2.8% (18/641). At 1 year, recurrence was observed in 2.3% (11/487) and 6.5% (10/154) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. The 5-year recurrence and revision rates were 15.7% (60/383) and 12.8% (49/383), respectively. At 5 years, recurrence was observed in 16.4% (48/293) and 13.3% (12/90) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that surgical position was not associated with a risk of recurrence after 1 year (odds ratio [OR] for LD vs BC, 1.39; P = .56) and 5 years (OR for LD vs BC, 1.32; P = .43), although younger age at index surgery was associated with a higher risk of instability recurrence (OR, 1.73 per SD [4.1 years] decrease in age; P < .03). After 1 and 5 years, surgical position results were similar in a separate multivariable logistic regression model of revision surgery as the dependent variable, when adjusted for age, surgical position, bone loss group, and track. At 5 years, younger age was an independent risk factor for revision: OR 1.68 per SD (4.1 years) decrease in age (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Among fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, there was no difference in rates of recurrence and revision surgery after performing arthroscopic anterior stabilization in either the BC or the LD position at 1- and 5-year follow-ups. In multivariable analysis, younger age, but not surgical position, was an independent risk factor for recurrence.

Novel Diagnostic and Treatment Techniques for Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome is a challenging condition to diagnose and treat, often precipitated by the triad of repetitive overhead activity, pectoralis minor contracture, and scapular dyskinesia. The resultant protracted scapular posture creates gradual repetitive traction injury of the suprascapular nerve via tethering at the suprascapular notch and decreases the volume of the brachial plexus cords and axillary vessels in the retropectoralis minor space. A stepwise and exhaustive diagnostic protocol is essential to exclude alternate pathologies and confirm the diagnosis of this dynamic pathologic process. Ultrasound-guided injections of local anesthetic or botulinum toxin are a key factor in confirming the diagnosis and prognosticating potential response from surgical release. In patients who fail over 6 months of supervised physical therapy aimed at correcting scapular posture and stretching of the pectoralis minor, arthroscopic surgical release is indicated. We present our diagnostic algorithm and technique for arthroscopic suprascapular neurolysis, pectoralis minor release, brachial plexus neurolysis, and infraclavicular thoracic outlet decompression.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Learning Curve for Arthroscopic Shoulder Latarjet Procedure Shows Shorter Operating Time and Fewer Complications with Experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate the learning curve of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure in a consecutive series of 103 shoulders in 102 patients by comparing the early clinical and radiologic outcomes and complications of the first 25 patients with the latter 25 patients. Our hypothesis was that the studied parameters would be enhanced over time.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 103 shoulders in 102 patients treated with arthroscopic Latarjet procedure was prospectively registered from December 2014 until November 2019. Patients in this cohort represent the first cases of arthroscopic Latarjet for the 2 shoulder surgeons. All patients had a double screw fixation technique. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up and 3-dimensional computed tomography scans preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up were prospectively registered. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, complications, and reoperations were all recorded. In total, 85 of 103 shoulders (83%) had complete data sets. Patient demographics, WOSI scores, operating time, complications, satisfaction rate, and radiology scores in the first and last 25 patients were compared to evaluate learning curve.

RESULTS

There was longer operating time in the early group compared with the latter (130 vs 105 minutes, P = .001) and number of complications was reduced with experience (16 vs 4, P = .0005). Serious complications requiring a reoperation were 4 (16%) in the early group compared to 1 (4%) in the latter group (P = .157). Clinical results were good with major improvement in WOSI scores and 84 % satisfaction rates in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Latarjet was associated with a learning curve where the early group had longer operating time and greater rates of complications. This is a procedure with few serious complications, acceptable surgery time and learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative observation trial.

No Difference Between Anchorless and Traditional Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Clinical Comparison

Background

Shoulder instability and recurrent dislocations are common problems encountered by orthopedic surgeons and are frequently associated with a Bankart lesion. These are classically treated with either open or arthroscopic repair utilizing traditional suture anchors, though anchorless fixation techniques have recently been developed as an alternate fixation method that reduces native bone loss and has comparable pull-out strength.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed at a single institution for patients who underwent Bankart repair from January 2008 through February 2014. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaires were mailed to 35 patients with anchorless fixation and 35 age-, gender-, and surgeon-matched patients with traditional suture anchors. Statistical analysis was performed comparing re-dislocation, additional surgery, and ASES scores with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results

Eleven patients in the anchorless implant group and 15 patients in the anchor group completed the questionnaire. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years in the anchorless group and 5.6 years in the anchor group (p=0.04). The number of implants was 4.82 in the anchorless group and 3.87 in the anchor group (p = 0.04). No difference was found in re-dislocation rates (p = 0.80) or additional surgery on the affected shoulder (p = 0.75). ASES scores were found to have no statistical difference (89.89 for the anchorless group versus 85.37 for the anchor group; p = 0.78).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart lesion repair with traditional anchors compared to anchorless fixation, there appears to be no difference in shoulder re-dislocation rates, recurrent ipsilateral shoulder surgery, or ASES scores.

Return to play following open Bankart repair in collision athletes aged 18 years or less

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, return to play (RTP), and recurrence rates in patients aged 18 years or less who underwent open Bankart repair (OBR) for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A retrospective review of collision athletes under 18 years old who underwent OBR by 2 surgeons between the years 2010 and 2019 was carried out. An OBR using a subscapularis split was performed in all patients. Recurrent instability, rate of RTP, and time to RTP were recorded. The Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury score, Subjective Shoulder Value score, and visual analog scale scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 34 male collision athletes with a mean age of 16.5 ± 1.3 years (range, 15-18 years). The mean follow-up for patients was 49.5 ± 30.7 months. A total of 30 patients (88.2%) returned to full sport at a mean time of 5.8 ± 2.2 months, with 27 (90%) managing to return at their preinjury level of participation. The mean Subjective Shoulder Value score for patients at the final follow-up was 86.8 ± 17.5, the mean Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury score was 86.3 ± 22.6, and the mean visual analog scale score was 1.6 ± 1.8. Eight patients (23.5%) re-dislocated their shoulder, with 4 of them requiring a further surgery. Two patients (5.8%) reported having incidents of subluxation that did not require reduction.

CONCLUSION

This study found high rates of patient-reported satisfaction, excellent functional outcomes, and high rates of RTP in the medium term among young collision athletes aged 18 years or less who underwent OBR for anterior shoulder instability. However, there were high rates of recurrence with moderate rates of revision surgical stabilization in the medium term.

Evaluation of factors associated with successful 5-year outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of athletes 5-years post-operatively following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to evaluate factors associated with satisfaction and shoulder function, as defined by subjective shoulder value.

METHODS

A retrospective review of athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, with a minimum of 5-year follow-up was performed. Recurrence, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again, and rate, level and timing of return to play, and Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score were evaluated. Multi-linear regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting postoperative Satisfaction, and SSV level.

RESULTS

Overall, 144 athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair were included, with a mean age of 26.9 years (SD: 8.1), 132 (91.7%) were males, and mean follow-up of 75.7 months. At final follow up, 82.6% were satisfied/very satisfied, and the mean SSV was 85.8 (SD: 14.4). Overall, the rate of return to play was 80.5%, with 63.9% returning at the same level at a mean of 6.2 months (SD: 2.7). Overall, there was 18 (12.5%) had recurrent instability, and a further procedure was performed in 15 (10.4%) patients. Linear regression revealed that the SIRSI score (p < 0.0001), SSV (p < 0.0001), VAS (p < 0.0031), no sleep trouble (p = 0.0129) was associated with satisfaction. Logistic regression revealed whether a patient required revision surgery (p = 0.0029), or had re-dislocation (p = 0.0031) was also associated with satisfaction. Linear regression revealed that the SIRSI score (p < 0.0001), VAS score (p < 0.0001), and no sleep trouble (p < 0.0001), were associated with SSV score.

CONCLUSION

There was a high rate of satisfaction at 5-year follow-up, with excellent patient-reported outcomes and a high rate of return to play among athletes. However, there was a moderate rate of recurrent instability and further revision surgery. This study identified that the SIRSI score, VAS score, no sleep trouble and ability to return to play at the same level were associated with both satisfaction and SSV score.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Treatment of anterior shoulder instability: a bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

The treatment of anterior shoulder instability is a focus in the field of sports medicine. While much research has been conducted, few bibliometric studies have been performed in this field. This study analyzed the main characteristics and identified emerging research trends and hotspots related to the treatment of anterior shoulder instability over the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched for (anterior shoulder instability OR anterior shoulder dislocation) AND (treatment OR reconstruction) in ARTICLE (Mesh) in the Web of Science database from 1980 to 2020. We analyzed the keywords, author, institution, country, number of citations, average number of citations, publication year, and partnership of the identified articles. Information about annual publications was analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019; the remaining data were analyzed using VOSviewer version 1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) and CiteSpace version 5.7.R2 (Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 1964 articles were published between 1980 and 2020. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, the United States, the United States Department of Defense, and Arcieio were journals, countries, institutions, and authors with the highest numbers of publications. The topic hotspots were instability, shoulder, and dislocation, while the research frontiers were arthroscopic, Bankart repair, Latarjet procedure, risk factors, recurrence, and complications.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of anterior shoulder instability has shown an increasing number of publications each year and achieved great progress. The United States made the most outstanding contributions to this important field. Arthroscopic, Bankart repair, and Latarjet procedures were research hotspots and risk factors, recurrence, and complications were likely to research frontiers.

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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.

Reasons Why Athletes Do Not Return to Sports After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Study of 208 Athletes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background:

There is a lack of information regarding the reasons why patients do not return to sports after an arthroscopic Bankart repair and whether there is a relationship between return to sports and functional outcomes.

Purpose:

To evaluate the reasons why competitive athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair did not return to sports and whether there was a relationship between returning to sports and postoperative outcome scores and complications.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Of 217 competitive athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for isolated anterior glenohumeral instability between June 2014 and December 2017, a total of 208 athletes (96%) were evaluated at minimum 2-year follow-up. Return to sports, the level of sports achieved, and the time between surgery and return to competition were assessed, and patients who did not return to sports were asked to provide the reasons for cessation. The Rowe score and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated.

Results:

The mean patient age was 24 years (range, 18-30 years), and the mean follow-up was 44 months (range, 24-90 months). Of the 208 athletes, 73% were able to return to sports (65% returned to their preinjury level), and 27% did not return to sports. Of those who did not return, the most frequent reasons were fear of reinjury (44%), lack of confidence in their shoulder (12%), and concern about a new rehabilitation process in case of recurrence (10%). The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed significant postoperative improvement in all patients (P < .001), with no significant differences between the 2 study groups at the final follow-up. There were 21 recurrences (10%) and 5 complications (2.4%), and 11 patients (5.3%) underwent revision surgery, with no significant differences in these rates between the groups.

Conclusion:

Of patients who did not return to sports, 74% left for a reason independent of shoulder function, with the most frequent causes being fear of reinjury and a concern about new rehabilitation process. Neither outcome scores nor complications varied significantly between patients who returned and those who did not return to sports.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Delta-Loop-Stitch: Three-Point Fixation for Combined Radial and Tangential Capsular Shift for the Treatment of Multidirectional Instability of the Shoulder and Hyperlaxity

Multidirectional shoulder instability and hyperlaxity can be treated with arthroscopic shoulder stabilization and capsular shift. In these patients, the joint capsule often becomes the weak link in terms of pullout strength and cutting through of the used sutures, which can further be compromised by reduced quality of the capsular tissue. The described delta-loop-stitch combines a loop stitch through the capsule with a 3-point-fixation to the intact labrum thus distributing the load and reducing the risk of failure of the fixation. The suture knots are directed under the joint capsule away from the articulating surfaces to reduce the risk of iatrogenic lesions of the articular cartilage. The circumferential application of the delta-loop-stitch allows a sufficient capsular shift that combines a radial and tangential shift and reduction of the overall joint volume that can be adjusted to the patient's individual situation and the surgeon's preference.

Evolving Concepts in the Management of Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

Shoulder instability exists on a spectrum ranging from subtle subluxation and pain to dislocation and can be the result of a traumatic event or repetitive microtrauma. Shoulder instability can result in significant disability and often requires surgical intervention, especially amongst younger, active patient populations. The optimal treatment of shoulder instability depends on the degree of instability and concomitant pathology involving the labrum, capsule, and bony anatomy of the glenoid and humeral head. Even with surgical intervention, recurrent instability remains a relatively common and difficult problem to address.

PURPOSE

With a focus on anterior instability, the purpose of this review article is to discuss the current assessment and treatment of shoulder instability, and highlight current and future treatment modalities, as well as to identify current trends and deficiencies in our current management. We also provide an algorithm for the surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Literature databases were extensively searched for recent articles related to the mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of shoulder instability to comprise a comprehensive review.

CONCLUSION

Although there are multiple treatment modalities available for shoulder instability, such as nonoperative management, open and arthroscopic Bankart repair, Latarjet procedures, and remplissage, orthopaedic surgeons continue to learn about the most appropriate method of management as increasing long-term outcomes become available.

Knotted Versus Knotless Anchors for Labral Repair in the Shoulder: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare biomechanical and clinical outcomes between knotless and knotted anchors in arthroscopic labral repair, specifically in (1) Bankart repair, (2) SLAP repair, (3) posterior labral repair, and (4) remplissage augmentation of Bankart repair.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to find biomechanical and clinical studies comparing knotted and knotless anchors using the search term "knotless anchor."

RESULTS

Overall, 17 studies met inclusion criteria. There were 7 studies evaluating the biomechanical outcomes, of which 5 found mixed results between knotted and knotless anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1 demonstrated a difference for SLAP repair favoring knotless anchors, and 2 showed no significant difference for Remplissage in terms of ultimate load-to-failure. Four studies evaluated knotless labral anchors compared with knotted anchors in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair with no significant differences in outcomes reported between the 2 anchor types, except in one study that found an improved visual analog scale score and a lower recurrence and revision rate with knotted anchors. Five studies evaluated knotless anchors compared with knotted anchors in patients undergoing SLAP repair, and none of the included studies found any significant differences in the patient reported outcome measures or revision rates. Of the 5 studies comparing operative time, 4 found a reduced time with knotless anchors.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical results show no significant differences in outcomes between knotless and knotted anchors for labral repair in the shoulder, including Bankart repair, SLAP repair, and posterior labral repair. However, there was conflicting evidence supporting knotless or knotted anchors in the biomechanical studies. However, operative times may be reduced with the use of knotless anchors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, A Systematic Review of Level II and III studies.

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%.

PURPOSE

To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level (P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (± SD) of 41 ± 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 ± 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively (P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 ± 3 points to 93.3 ± 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 ± 3 points to 93.7 ± 4 points postoperatively (P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group (P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group (P = .55).

CONCLUSION

In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Inferior to Superior Capsular Shift in Lateral Decubitus Position

Traditional Bankart repairs for anterior labral tears of the shoulder use suture anchors to repair the anterior shoulder labrum and capsule to the glenoid. The technique described here involves releasing the anterior capsule of the glenoid and shifting it superiorly along with the labrum before anchoring. The intention of this extra step is to replicate the open technique, where the entire capsule is shifted superiorly on the glenoid.

Editorial Commentary: Posterior Shoulder Instability and Anatomic Capsular-Labral Reconstruction: Repair the Posterior Inferior Glenohumeral Ligament to the Glenoid Neck at the 7 O'Clock Position

Posteroinferior glenohumeral instability occurs in 10% of all instability cases but is observed increasingly more often. Arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair is the current standard for surgical management if nonoperative treatment fails. In contrast to the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament (IGHL), the posterior IGHL inserts onto the glenoid surface rather than onto the labrum. This implies that suture anchors should be placed on the glenoid rim when repairing these defects. However, clinical studies demonstrate excellent clinical outcomes irrespective of the location of the suture anchor.

Editorial Commentary: Open or Arthroscopic Surgery? Practice Makes Perfect…We Do Best What We Do Most Often

The reported outcomes of Bankart procedures performed after 2000 are significantly better than those reported prior to that date. The cause of this improvement can be found in adherence to the specific steps outlined in the Arthroscopy Association of North America Proficiency-Based Training program, improvements in instrumentation and implants and more appropriate patient selection. What is defined as an arthroscopic Bankart has also expanded. Patient-selection criteria have also changed dramatically over the past 2 decades, reflecting a better understanding of anterior shoulder instability and altering the choice of patients who should receive arthroscopic Bankart procedures. The arthroscopic Bankart with dual suture anchor remplissage is arguably the current arthroscopic gold standard for anterior shoulder "off-track" instability.