Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in High Failure Rates and a Low Return to Duty Rate Without Recurrent Instability

Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND

The role of arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be definitively established and merits further investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision procedure for failed Bankart repair, as well as the return to athletic activity and complication rates.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2020, patients with a previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair who were treated with an arthroscopic Latarjet were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical outcomes at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively included the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Dislocations, subluxations, complications, pre- and postoperative levels of activity, and degree of osteoarthritis were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients, with a mean age at revision surgery of 31.2 ± 9.1 years and with either 1 (n = 59), 2 (n = 13), or 3 (n = 4) previous arthroscopic stabilizations, who underwent revision surgery using an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were studied. Postoperatively, the mean Rowe and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores increased from 41.8 ± 16 to 90.7 ± 14.3 (P < .001) and from 50.5 ± 13.8 to 90.5 ± 10.3 (P < .001), respectively. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index decreased from 1247 ± 367.6 to 548.9 ± 363 at the final follow-up (P < .001). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 23.1 months, 64 shoulders (83.1%) were subjectively graded as good to excellent using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. Grade 1, 2, and 3 osteoarthritis, according to Ogawa et al, was found in 18 (23.4%), 6 (7.8%), and 3 (3.9%) shoulders, respectively. Six (7.8%) dislocations after revision surgery were reported. In 4 failed cases, an Eden-Hybinette procedure was conducted, and in the remaining 2 patients, an arthroscopic extra-articular anterior capsular reinforcement was performed. A significantly decreased level of athletic activity was observed postoperatively (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Latarjet for the revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory patient-reported subjective outcomes with a low rate of recurrences and complications. However, a decreased level of athletic activity is expected.

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

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

Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied.

HYPOTHESIS

Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability.

RESULTS

In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Is Not Recommended: The Sad Country Song We Just Can't Quit

The approach to revision after an arthroscopic Bankart is a controversial topic. Several studies have shown an increased failure after revision compared with primary procedures, and many papers have recommended an open approach with or without bone augmentation. It seems intuitive that if an approach fails, that we ought to try a different one. And yet we do not. When facing this condition, it is far more common that we talk ourselves into performing another arthroscopic Bankart. It's relatively easy, familiar, and comforting. We find a reason to give this operation one more chance due to some patient-specific factor, like bone loss, number of anchors, or contact athlete status. Recent research shows that none of these factors matter, yet many of us find something that leads us to conclude that in our hands, with this patient, this time, the surgery will work. As data continue to emerge, the indications for this approach continue to narrow. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a reason to go back to this operation as our best choice for the failed arthroscopic Bankart.