Postoperative Management Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review

Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Quantitative analysis of the glenoid face knotless-type anchor placement for arthroscopic Bankart repair has not been reported.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless bioabsorbable anchors depending on the anchor location.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series, Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 124 patients (113 men and 11 women; age, 25.6 ± 7.5 years; follow-up time, 46.5 ± 18.2 months [range, 6.2-75.5 months]) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with the bioabsorbable knotless anchor between 2017 and 2021 were included in this study. Among them, 118 patients were observed for >2 years (mean, 48.2 ± 16.8 months [range, 24-75.5 months]) and were analyzed for final clinical and radiologic outcomes. Using postoperative 6-month magnetic resonance imaging, remnant glenoid (%) and labral height were measured. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), radiographic osteoarthritic change, dislocation, apprehension test, and return to sports were recorded. Three groups were established based on the remnant glenoid, which represented the percentage of the exposed glenoid anteroposterior diameter to the original diameter using the best-fit circle method-group A: lower quartile; group B: interquartile; and group C: upper quartile-and variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, the remnant glenoid was 57% ± 6.4% (range, 41.5%-75%) after the surgery. Osteoarthritic change, dislocations, and positive apprehension tests were observed in 5 (4.2%), 4 (3.4%), and 12 (10.2%) patients, respectively. A total of 34 (28.8%) and 64 (54.2%) patients could return to sports without and with restrictions, respectively. Comparing groups A, B, and C, postoperative labral height (7 ± 1, 7 ± 2, and 7 ± 1 mm; P = .623), final osteoarthritic change (1, 4, and 0; P = .440), positive apprehension tests (5, 5, and 2; P = .387), and return to sports (complete/restricted/unable, 6/18/5, 19/29/11, 9/17/4; P = .769) were not different. All ROM were similar across the groups (all P > .054), except for external rotation (ER) at postoperative 6 months (41.3°± 12.8°; 50.2°± 18.5°; and 49.8°± 15.2°; P = .050). However, ER after 1 year was similar across the groups (all P > .544). In further analysis, patients with positive apprehension tests had lower labral height compared with others (5 [4-6] mm and 7 [6-8] mm; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In arthroscopic Bankart repair, the placement of knotless bioabsorbable anchors on the glenoid face, combined with the remplissage procedure or rotator interval closure, resulted in a low recurrence rate and moderate return to sports. However, most patients had some restrictions in returning to sports. Moreover, this technique was not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including ER deficit, which was not affected by the position of the anchor on the glenoid face for a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Factors That Influence the Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Glenohumeral Instability

Numerous studies have reported high rates of return to sports following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) However, there is enormous controversy regarding the optimal management of these patients in the postoperative period. Controversy issues include rehabilitation, criteria for returning to sports, and the specific management of each athlete according to the sport they practice. Even though there are several rehabilitation protocols published in the literature, wide variability exists concerning the key elements of rehabilitation after an ABR. Regarding criteria for return to sports, there is a wide variation across the different published studies. The type of sports has been shown to affect an athlete’s decision to return to sports. Nevertheless, most research is evaluated by classifications that cluster different sports into categories that may have other influences in return to sports when analyzed separately. Finally, in addition to physical readiness, the athlete’s psychological state is crucial for returning to sports. However, the contribution of psychological readiness to an athlete’s return to sports after shoulder instability surgery remains uncertain and unexplored.