Increased Failure Rates After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Second Dislocation Compared to Primary Dislocation With Comparable Clinical Outcomes

No Clear Difference in Clinical Outcomes Between Knotted and Knotless Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The objective of the current study was to analyze if the arthroscopic Bankart repair using a knotless suture anchor has a better functional outcome than the conventional knot-tying Bankart repair.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature search was done in Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases in May 2023. Studies comparing the clinical outcome of Bankart repair using knotless and knot-tying techniques were included in the study. In vitro, animal, and level 4 and 5 studies were excluded. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was calculated according to the RoB 2 tool, and for non-randomized studies, MINORS criteria were used. Statistical analysis was done using RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, including two RCT and seven non-randomized comparative studies involving 720 patients, were included in the systematic review. The ROWE score ranged 81.7 to 94.3 in the knot-tying and 86 to 96.3 in the knotless group. VAS scores at final follow-up ranged between 0.1 to 1.7 in the knot-tying and 0.7 to 2.5 in the knotless group. The rate of redislocation, subluxation, and revision surgery in the knot-tying group ranged from 0 to 14.7%, 16.7 to 29.7%, and 1.6 to 17.6%, respectively, while that in the knotless group ranged from 2.4 to 23.8%, 7.4 to 22.2%, and 2.4 to 19%, respectively. The mean external rotation was 54 to 65 degrees in the knot-tying and 61 to 99 in the knotless group. The mean forward-flexion was 164 to 172 in the knot-tying and 165 to 174 in the knotless group. Our subjective synthesis doesn't reveal any difference in the outcome between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The available literature does not demonstrate a clear difference in functional outcomes, residual pain, and rate of complications like redislocation, subluxation and revision surgery between Bankart repair performed with knotted and knotless anchors.

Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients With Hyperlaxity and Near-Track Lesions

Background

Recurrent anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair presents a challenging clinical problem, with the primary stabilization procedure often portending the best chance for clinical success.

Purpose

To determine if capsuloligamentous laxity affects failure (recurrent dislocation, subluxation, and/or perceived instability symptoms) after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with near-track lesions (ie, those with smaller distance to dislocation [DTD]).

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability at a single institution between 2007 and 2019 and who had at least 2 years of follow-up data. Patients with glenoid bone loss >20%, off-track lesions, concomitant remplissage, or rotator cuff tear were excluded. Capsuloligamentous laxity, or hyperlaxity, was defined as external rotation >85° with the arm at the side and/or grade ≥2 in at least 2 planes with the shoulder at 90° of abduction. Near-track lesions were defined as those with a DTD <10 mm.

Results

Included were 173 patients (mean age, 20.5 years; mean DTD, 16.2 mm), of whom 16.8% sustained a recurrent dislocation and 6.4% had recurrent subluxations (defined as any subjective complaint of recurrent instability without frank dislocation), for an overall recurrent instability rate of 23.1%. The rate of revision stabilization was 15.6%. The mean time to follow-up was 7.4 years. Independent predictors of recurrent instability were younger age (P = .001), smaller DTD (P = .021), >1 preoperative instability episode (P < .001), and the presence of hyperlaxity during examination under anesthesia (P = .013). Among patients with near-track lesions, those with hyperlaxity had a recurrent instability rate almost double that of patients without hyperlaxity (odds ratio, 34.1; P = .04). The increased rate of failure and recurrent dislocation in the near-track hyperlaxity cohort remained elevated, even in patients with no bone loss.

Conclusion

Capsuloligamentous shoulder laxity was a significant independent risk factor for failure after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair without remplissage and was more predictive of failure in patients with versus without near-track lesions.

Editorial Commentary: Urgency Toward Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Is Essential for Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: You Don't Have to Fix After the First Dislocation, but Definitely Before the Second!

While still hotly debated, primary arthroscopic management of the first-time anterior shoulder dislocation has an extensive list of known benefits: lower overall health care costs, improved patient-reported outcomes, a vast reduction in secondary instability, and higher quality-of-life measures. Yet, despite these meaningful contributions to health care quality, we continue to bypass the predictable success of an acute arthroscopic Bankart repair in order to tempt fate with "a trial" of nonoperative care for our young, high-risk collision athletes. Whether for the in-season athlete, the "early responder" with limited apprehension, subluxations with spontaneous reduction, or those stoically committed to nonsurgical care, we as physicians are often complicit in this shared risk taking and ceremonial weighing of the risks and benefits for treatment options after primary shoulder instability. Even just 1 additional episode of instability recurrence can double (or triple) the rate of glenohumeral bone loss. Furthermore, subsequent anterior shoulder instability compromises subjective shoulder function, heightens risk of secondary recurrence and/or revision, and increases the likelihood of requiring more advanced surgical management, such as with a Latarjet or other anterior bone block procedure. We must maintain a sense of urgency toward surgical treatment, particularly in young, high-demand athletes with persistent instability. To parrot the wisdom of our shoulder mentors, hear my humble plea: you don't have to fix the shoulder after the first anterior dislocation, but you should definitely do it before the second!