Arthroscopic Biceps Transfer to the Glenoid With Bankart Repair Grants Satisfactory 2-Year Results for Recurrent Anteroinferior Glenohumeral Instability in Subcritical Bone Loss

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine reported MCID and PASS values for PROMs following shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Secondarily, our aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS usage in studies on shoulder instability surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of MCID and PASS values following Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English, and studies reporting utilization MCID or PASS for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following Latarjet, Bankart, Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using median and range. Categorical variables, including PROMs reported and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. As MCID is a patient-level metric and not a group-level metric, the authors validated that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects that met or exceeded the MCID.

RESULTS

A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely utilized outcome threshold which was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit (SCB) or maximal outcome improvement (MOI).

CONCLUSION

Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. While MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable inter-study variability observed in their values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental, since they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

Editorial Commentary: For Patients With Shoulder Instability, On-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion Plus Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss May Be the Best Indication for Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon

As the definition of shoulder glenoid critical bone loss has evolved and decreased from 25% to 17% to 13.5%, indications for bone block procedures for shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss have expanded. While the bone block procedure is an effective treatment for almost all cases of anterior shoulder instability, regardless of the amount of bone loss, many surgeons prefer to perform a bone block procedure only in cases of critical bone loss due to risk of complications. Thus, for cases of minimal (subcritical) bone loss, Remplissage has been recommended to enhance Bankart repair. As an alternative, dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of the biceps tendon has been recommended as a surgical option in patients with shoulder instability and subcritical bone loss. How do we decide? A biomechanical study shows DAS is an effective method for on-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical bone loss, and Remplissage is more effective for off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Clinical studies are required to complement biomechanical findings.

Biomechanical Analysis Reveals Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss Is Best Treated With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization for On-Track Lesions and With Remplissage for Off-Track Lesions

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical effects of augmenting Bankart repair (BR) with either remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with on-track or off-track bipolar bone loss.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the intact, injury, and repair conditions. Injury conditions included 15% glenoid bone loss with an on-track or off-track Hill-Sachs lesion as previously recommended. Repair conditions included isolated BR, BR with remplissage, and BR with DAS (long head of biceps transfer). The glenohumeral stability was assessed by measuring the anterior translation under 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 N load and maximum load without causing instability at mid-range (60°) and end-range (90°) external rotation (ER). Maximum range of motion (ROM) was measured by applying a 2.2-N·m torque in passive ER and internal rotation.

RESULTS

Isolated BR failed to restore native glenohumeral stability in both on-track and off-track bipolar bone loss models. Both remplissage and DAS significantly decreased the anterior instability in the bipolar bone loss models, showing better restoration than the isolated BR. In the on-track lesions, DAS successfully restored native glenohumeral stability and mobility, whereas remplissage significantly decreased anterior translation without load (-2.12 ± 1.07 mm at 90° ER, P = .003; -1.98 ± 1.23 mm at 60° ER, P = .015). In the off-track lesions, remplissage restored native glenohumeral stability but led to significant ROM limitation (-8.6° ± 2.3° for internal rotation, P < .001; -13.9° ± 6.2° for ER, P = .003), whereas DAS failed to restore native stability at 90° ER regarding the increased anterior translation under 50 N (4.10 ± 1.53 mm, P < .001) and decreased maximum load (-13.8 ± 9.2 N, P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

At time-zero, both remplissage and DAS significantly reduced residual anterior instability compared with isolated BR in the bipolar bone loss models and restored the native glenohumeral stability under most translational loads. However, remplissage could decrease the anterior translation without load for on-track lesions and may restrict ROM for off-track lesions, whereas DAS failed to restore native stability under high translational loads for off-track lesions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

DAS could be recommended to treat on-track bipolar bone loss with less biomechanical adverse effects, whereas remplissage might be the preferred procedure to address off-track bipolar bone loss for better stability.

Arthroscopic Latarjet Versus Arthroscopic Free Bone Block Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Proportional Meta-analysis Comparing Recurrence, Complication, and Reoperation Rates

BACKGROUND

Several arthroscopic glenoid bone augmentation techniques have been introduced to treat patients affected by anterior shoulder instability associated with critical bone loss. The efficacy of the different arthroscopic bony procedures has not been compared yet.

PURPOSE

To compare the recurrence, complication, and reoperation rates of the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) and arthroscopic free bone block (ABB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify clinical studies reporting the outcomes of the AL and ABB procedures. The following search phrases were used: "Arthroscopic" AND "Bone Block" OR "Bone Graft," and "Arthroscopic" AND "Glenoid Augmentation" OR "Glenoid Reconstruction," and "Arthroscopic" AND "Latarjet" OR "Coracoid Graft" OR "Coracoid Transfer." Exclusion criteria were <24 months of minimum follow-up, sample size <10 cases, revision after previous glenoid bone grafting, epilepsy, and multidirectional instability. Data regarding the study design, patient characteristics, surgical technique, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A proportional meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication, recurrence, and reoperation rates between the 2 groups. Multiple subgroup analyses were performed to analyze the incidence of each complication and assess the weight of different fixation methods (in the whole cohort) or different graft types (in the ABB group). The modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of 5010 potentially relevant studies, 18 studies regarding the AL procedure (908 cases) and 15 studies regarding the ABB procedure (469 cases) were included. The 2 groups were comparable in age (P = .07), sex (P = .14), glenoid bone loss (P = .14), number of preoperative dislocations (P = .62), proportion of primary and revision procedures (P = .95), length of follow-up (P = .81), modified Coleman Methodology Score (P = .21), and level of evidence (P = .49). There was no difference in the recurrence (P = .88), reoperation (P = .79), and complication (P = .08) rates. The subgroup analyses showed a higher rate of hardware-related complications for screw fixation compared with flexible fixation (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The AL and ABB procedures had similar recurrence, reoperation, and complication rates. Screw fixation of the bone graft was related to an increased risk of complications compared with flexible fixation.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022368153 (PROSPERO).

Long head of the biceps tendon versatility in reconstructive shoulder surgery: a narrative review of arthroscopic techniques and their biomechanical principles with video presentation

The management of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) during shoulder arthroscopy has been a subject of controversy for many years, with evolving discussions and trends. Despite long-standing debate, the nature of the surgical indication regarding how to treat concomitent LHBT injuries has undergone changes in recent years. It now extends beyond the timing of tenotomy to encompass considerations of alternative methods for preserving the LHBT, along with an ongoing exploration of how it can be effectively utilized in reconstructive shoulder surgery. Recent techniques describe approaches to using LHBT in a wide range of procedures, from shoulder instability to rotator cuff tears. Additionally, LHBT-based reconstructive techniques have surfaced for addressing what were formerly denoted as irreparable rotator cuff tears. While current literature provides detailed anatomical descriptions of the LHBT and many reports of novel, advanced techniques, there is still much debate regarding the decision-making process in each case. Because of the growing number of emerging techniques and the escalating debate in the subsequent paper, a decision has been made to present the current literature review concerning the potential utilization of LHBT in shoulder arthroscopy. In a dedicated video, we demonstrate the main arthroscopic techniques employed by the authors in their daily practice.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization with Hill-Sachs Remplissage Can be Employed in Skeletally Immature Patients-Operative Technique

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies indicate that glenoid bony augmentation raises the risk of complications during and after surgery. On the other hand, repairing the labrum alone in cases with subcritical glenoid bone loss results in recurrent instability and persistent apprehension. As a result, recent advancements in shoulder instability surgery prioritize fully restoring the anterior shoulder restraint.

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE

A novel method for treating recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion in skeletally immature patients is suggested: the use of dynamic anterior stabilization technique incorporating the long head of the biceps tendon onto the anterior glenoid rim via trans-subscapular transfer, in conjunction with Hill-Sachs remplissage. A practical, step-by-step surgical technique for a complete reconstruction of the anterior capsule-labral-ligamentous complex is provided. This involves utilizing a soft-tissue dynamic anterior sling, achieved through the trans-subscapularis transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon at the glenoid level. The procedure concludes with a Hill-Sachs remplissage to further prevent off-track events and alleviate apprehension.

CONCLUSION

Dynamic anterior stabilization is a suitable approach for addressing recurring anterior shoulder instability in skeletally immature patients who have subcritical glenoid bone loss and bipolar bone lesions.

Anchorless Onlay Dynamic Anterior Stabilization of the Shoulder Using a Guided Posterior Double Endobutton Fixation

The treatment of shoulder instability in the presence of a subcritical glenoid defect poses challenges, as simple Bankart seems insufficient, and the Latarjet procedure may be excessive. Recently, a dynamic anterior stabilization technique involving anterior transposition of the long head of the biceps (LHB) through a subscapularis split was described for that purpose. Previously published results demonstrated good short-term results, but several technical pitfalls have also been mentioned. We describe an onlay, anchorless, and intra-articular knotless method of fixing the LHB into the anterior glenoid that provides the important stabilizing "sling effect" of the dynamic anterior stabilization while avoiding some of the pitfalls described by other techniques.

The long head of the biceps tendon: a valuable tool in shoulder surgery

ANATOMY AND FUNCTION

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) has different properties and characteristics that render it a valuable tool in the hands of shoulder surgeons. Its accessibility, biomechanical strength, regenerative capabilities, and biocompatibility allow it to be a valuable autologous graft for repairing and augmenting ligamentous and muscular structures in the glenohumeral joint.

SHOULDER SURGERY APPLICATIONS

Numerous applications of the LHBT have been described in the shoulder surgery literature, including augmentation of posterior-superior rotator cuff repair, augmentation of subscapularis peel repair, dynamic anterior stabilization, anterior capsule reconstruction, post-stroke stabilization, and superior capsular reconstruction. Some of these applications have been described meticulously in technical notes and case reports, whereas others may require additional research to confirm clinical benefit and efficacy.

CONCLUSION

This review examines the role of the LHBT as a source of local autograft, with biological and biomechanical properties, in aiding outcomes of complex primary and revision shoulder surgery procedures.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization of the Shoulder: Onlay Biceps Transfer to the Anterior Glenoid Using the Double Double-Pulley Technique

The treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability includes several surgical options, ranging from soft tissue to bony procedures-open or arthroscopic. In arthroscopic dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) of the shoulder, the long head of the biceps is transferred to the anterior glenoid through a subscapularis tendon split. The biceps may be fixed either in an inlay or in an onlay position. Inlay DAS theoretically increases anterior glenohumeral stability through 3 different effects: the hammock effect, sling effect, and the tensioning effect. Onlay DAS may additionally increase stability through a labroplasty effect, produced by the onlay positioning of the biceps on the anterior glenoid rim. The current technical note presents tips and tricks, and pearls and pitfalls, to reproducibly perform onlay DAS using all-suture anchors and the double double-pulley technique.

Onlay Dynamic Anterior Stabilization With Biceps Transfer for the Treatment of Anterior Glenohumeral Instability Produces Good Clinical Outcomes and Successful Healing at a Minimum 1 Year of Follow-Up

Purpose

To report the results of the onlay dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of biceps (LHB) and the double double-pulley technique for the treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability (AGI) with ≤20% glenoid bone loss (GBL).

Methods

From September 2018 to December 2021, patients with AGI and ≤20% GBL were enrolled in a prospective study on DAS and followed for a minimum of 1 year. The primary outcomes were Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Rowe score, range of motion, and strength. The secondary outcomes were ability to return to play (RTP), RTP at same level, lack of recurrence of instability, successful LHB healing, and lack of complications. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure GBL, Hill-Sachs interval, glenoid track, and assess LHB integrity.

Results

Eighteen consecutive patients underwent DAS. Fifteen patients had a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean, 23.93 ± 13.67 months). In total, 12 were male and 3 female patients; 73.3% practiced recreational sports; mean age at surgery was 23.40 ± 6.53 years; mean number of dislocation episodes were 10.13 ± 8.42; mean GBL was 8.21 ± 7.39% (range, 0-20.24%); mean Hill-Sachs interval was 15.00 ± 2.96 mm; and mean glenoid track was 18.87 ± 2.57mm. The mean improvement in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and Rowe score (959.27 ± 386.70 and 74.00 ± 22.22 points) was significant (P < .001 and P < .001) and more than 6 times greater than the minimum clinically important difference. The mean improvement in active elevation, abduction, and external and internal rotation (23.00 ± 27.76°, 33.33 ± 43.78°, 8.33 ± 13.58°, and 0.73 ± 1.28 points) was significant (P = .006, P = .011, P = .032, and P = .044). RTP rate was 93.33%. RTP at same level was 60.00%. One patient with hyperlaxity had a redislocation (6.7% recurrence). No complications were reported. Each magnetic resonance imaging scan showed successful LHB healing to the anterior glenoid.

Conclusions

At a minimum of 1-year follow-up, DAS produces significant and clinically important improvements in shoulder function, successful LHB healing, and is safe for the treatment of AGI with ≤20% GBL without severe hyperlaxity.

Level of Evidence

IV, therapeutic case series.

Editorial Commentary: The Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Is Useful for Shoulder Reconstruction Including Glenohumeral Stabilization: From Biceps Killers to Biceps Users

Historically, it was believed that the shoulder long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) was a pain generator and had to be routinely sacrificed. Recently, it has become apparent that the LHBT is useful as an autograft for various types of surgical reconstruction, including superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears, and augmentation for poor soft-tissue quality during rotator cuff repair or shoulder arthroplasty. In cases of shoulder instability, the biceps can reinforce the capsule or reconstruct a missing labrum for glenohumeral stabilization. Dynamic anterior stabilization transfers the LHBT through the subscapularis to the anterior glenoid margin, creating "sling" and "hammock" effects. Various labral augmentation techniques also have been described. In a paradigm shift, shoulder surgeons may become LHBT users instead of LHBT "killers."

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.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability and Glenoid Bone Loss after Arthroscopic Free Bone Block Combined With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization

BACKGROUND

As an alternative to the Latarjet procedure, the arthroscopic free bone block (FBB) procedure combined with dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) has been recently proposed to provide both glenoid augmentation and a tendon sling effect for treating anterior shoulder instability (ASI) with glenoid bone loss.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of FBB-DAS for ASI with glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic FBB-DAS for ASI with >15% glenoid bone loss between February 2017 and March 2020 were screened and enrolled in this study. Clinical outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at a minimum 2-year follow-up, including recurrence, complications, shoulder functional scores, range of motion, and return to sports. Postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were also performed.

RESULTS

Of a total of 65 patients with a mean follow-up of 46.1 ± 13.1 months, no patients experienced a recurrent dislocation or subluxation postoperatively, while 2 had a positive anterior apprehension test (3.1%). Additionally, 2 patients (3.1%) experienced complications of hematoma and shoulder stiffness, respectively. The mean visual analog scale score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score all improved significantly from 3.2 ± 2.4, 75.0 ± 18.9, 43.6 ± 27.3, and 33.8 ± 9.0 preoperatively to 1.3 ± 0.8, 95.1 ± 8.0, 95.5 ± 7.8, and 14.8 ± 3.5 at final follow-up, respectively (all P < .001). No difference was detected in range of motion except for 8.1° and 7.5° external rotation limitations in adduction and abduction, respectively. There were 62 patients (95.4%) who returned to sports, and 54 patients (83.1%) returned to the preinjury level. The transferred biceps tendon was intact in all 59 patients who completed radiological examination at the latest follow-up. Good bone healing was achieved in 98.3% of patients, and the glenoid bone defect decreased from 18.1% to 4.9%. Osseous and labral glenoids were significantly enlarged in width and depth on the latest magnetic resonance imaging (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic FBB-DAS provided satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for ASI with glenoid bone loss. Despite slight external rotation restrictions, it achieved low recurrence and complication rates, excellent shoulder functional scores, a high return-to-sports rate, and favorable graft healing and remodeling.

Recurrence of instability after Latarjet procedure: causes, results and treatment algorithm

Latarjet modifies the anatomy of the shoulder, and subsequent revision surgery is challenging. It is mandatory to determine the cause of recurrence in order to select the best treatment option. A CT scan is needed to measure glenoid track and evaluate coracoid graft status: position, degree of consolidation, and osteolysis. Conservative management can be advocated in selected patients in whom the instability level does not interfere with the activities they wish to perform. Surgical treatment is based on the glenoid track measurement and coracoid graft suitability. The coracoid graft is considered suitable if it preserves the conjoint tendon insertion, does not show osteolysis, and is large enough to reconstruct the glenoid surface. Adding a remplissage is recommended for those cases with a coracoid graft insufficient to convert large off-track Hill-Sachs lesions into on-track. If the coracoid graft is suitable to reconstruct bone defects in terms of size and viability but is poorly positioned or avulsed, graft repositioning can be a valid option. In patients with unsuitable coracoid bone graft, free bone graft is the revision technique of choice. The size of the graft should be large enough to restore the glenoid surface and to convert any off-track Hill-Sachs lesion into on-track. There is a small group of patients in whom bone defects were properly addressed but Latarjet failed due to hyperlaxity or poor soft tissue quality. Extraarticular capsular reinforcement is suggested in this population.

Biomechanical analysis of anterior stability after 15% glenoid bone loss: comparison of Bankart repair, dynamic anterior stabilization, dynamic anterior stabilization with Bankart repair, and Latarjet

BACKGROUND

Dynamic anterior shoulder stabilization (DAS) with Bankart repair is a recently described stabilization technique thought to be more robust than an isolated Bankart repair while avoiding many coracoid transfer-related complications and technical demands. DAS involves transfer of the long head biceps through a subscapularis split to the anterior glenoid to create a sling effect. We hypothesize that DAS with Bankart repair will restore anterior stability in a human-cadaveric model with subcritical (15%) glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested using an established shoulder simulator to record glenohumeral translations with an accuracy of ±0.2 mm. Shoulders were tested in 5 states-intact soft tissues, Bankart defect with 15% bone loss, isolated Bankart repair, DAS with Bankart repair, isolated DAS, and Latarjet. A 45 N anterior force was applied through the pectoralis major tendon, and translation of the humeral head was recorded and compared with repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The anterior translation in the intact (native) glenoid was 4.7 mm at neutral position and 4.6 mm at 45° external rotation. Anterior translation significantly increased after introducing a Bankart defect with 15% glenoid bone loss to 9.1 mm (neutral, P = .002) and 9.5 mm (45° external rotation, P < .001). All repair conditions showed a significant decrease in anterior translation relative to Bankart defect. DAS with Bankart repair decreased anterior translation compared with the Bankart defect: 2.7 mm (neutral, P < .001) and 2.1 mm (45° external rotation, P < .001). DAS with Bankart repair significantly decreased anterior translation compared with the isolated Bankart repair (2.7 mm vs. 4.7 mm, P = .023) and the isolated DAS (2.7 mm vs. 4.3 mm, P = .041) in neutral position. The Latarjet procedure resulted in the greatest reduction in anterior translation compared with the Bankart defect: 1.2 mm (neutral, P < .001) and 1.9 mm (45° external rotation, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

DAS with Bankart repair is a viable alternative to restore anterior glenohumeral stability with a 15% glenoid defect at a greater degree than either DAS or Bankart repair alone. The Latarjet procedure was the most effective in reducing anterior translation but restrained the anterior translation significantly more than the native glenoid.

Early Treatment of Shoulder Pathology Is Necessary but Not Enough Is Being Performed

Delayed treatment of shoulder instability results in bone loss requiring more-complicated surgery, in turn resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Similarly, delayed treatment of repairable rotator cuff tears results in irreparable tears requiring more-complicated surgery and resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Delayed treatment of shoulder pathology is a problem. Solutions include education and research investigation.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using Transosseous Bone Tunnel Technique With the Adjustable Loop Length Cortical Button Incorporating High-Strength Suture Augmentation for Recurrent Shoulder Instability

Dynamic anterior stabilization using the long head of the biceps tendon is a recently described technique in the management of recurrent shoulder dislocation with subcritical bone loss. This technique involves the transfer of the long head of the biceps to the glenoid, providing sling and hammock effect. The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon fixation can be accomplished with a variety of implants. We present a modified fixation technique of LHB tendon using transosseous bone tunnel with the adjustable loop length cortical button, incorporating high-strength suture augmentation device in a patient with recurrent glenohumeral instability with limited glenoid bone loss and an engaging Hill-Sachs defect in the humeral head.

Editorial Commentary: Dynamic Anterior Stabilization via Biceps Tenodesis to the Glenoid Is an Option for Anterior Shoulder Instability With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss

A nuanced approach to treatment of anterior shoulder instability is encouraged, particularly in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss. In patients with bone loss, recurrent instability after isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair has dampened enthusiasm for this procedure. Adjunctive treatment with remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization via biceps tenodesis to the glenoid is an alternative to bone transfer procedures, which are effective but have higher complication rates. Dynamic anterior stabilization or tenodesis of the long head of the biceps to the 3-o'clock position on the glenoid through a subscapularis split is biomechanically superior to isolated Bankart repair for reducing anterior translation, even in the setting of minor glenoid bone loss due to a sling effect similar to that produced by the Latarjet procedure. A disadvantage is placement of a large implant into the small space of the anterior glenoid and creation of a soft-tissue defect in the capsule.

Editorial Commentary: Double-Sling Transfer of Both the Conjoined Tendons and Long Head Biceps Tendon for Glenoid Bone Loss in Patients With Shoulder Instability Shows Biomechanical Benefit in Shoulder Abduction and External Rotation But May Be Insufficient in Mid-Range Arm Positions

Recurrence of shoulder glenohumeral instability is exacerbated in cases of glenoid bone loss. Surgical bone transfer techniques well address the issue. Innovative soft-tissue tendon transfers may fill the defect plus provide a sling effect. Double-sling transfer of both the conjoined tendons and long head biceps tendon for glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability shows biomechanical benefit in shoulder abduction and external rotation. However, as the sling effect is less pronounced in mid-range arm position, the benefit of double-sling transfer may be insufficient. Moreover, the biomechanical models are limited relative to the complexity of clinical glenohumeral function, and obviously limited to time-zero analysis. We should be careful before we abandon bony augmentation procedures.