Fixation methods and implants in shoulder stabilization: A historical perspective

Minimum 10-year follow-up outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart's repair with metallic anchors: Reliable results with low redislocation rates

BACKGROUND

With stiff competition from alternative albeit more expensive counterparts, it has become important to establish the applicability of metallic anchors for shoulder instability in the modern era. This can be accomplished, in part, by analysing long-term outcomes.

AIM

To analyse minimum 10-year outcomes from 30 patients following arthroscopic anterior stabilisation using metallic anchors.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from arthroscopic Bankart repairs performed using metal anchors during 2007P-2010 were retrospectively analysed in this single-surgeon study. Comprehensive data collection included historical and clinical findings, dislocation details, operative specifics, and follow-up radiological and clinical findings including shoulder scores. The primary outcomes were patient-reported scores (Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], and Rowe scores) and pain and instability on a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A 3% recurrence rate of dislocation was noted at the final follow-up. Total constant scores at 10 years postoperatively measured between 76 and 100 (mean 89) were significantly better than preoperative scores (mean 62.7). Congruous improvements were also noted in the Rowe and ASES scores and VAS at the 10-year review.

CONCLUSION

Reliable long-term outcomes with metallic anchors in surgery for shoulder instability can be expected. Our results provide additional evidence of their continued, cost-effective presence in the modern scenario.

Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair using All-Suture Anchor and Metal Anchor

Introduction

Both knotted all suture anchors and metal anchors are used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. We retrospectively evaluated and compared clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the knotted all-suture anchors and knotted metal anchors.

Materials and methods

In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair without any concomitant additional lesion repair using either all-suture anchors or metal anchors, between January 2015 and May 2018 were identified. Their pre- and post-operative functional and clinical outcomes were compared using Rowe and WOSI scores. The recurrence rate in the two groups was also compared.

Results

A total of 41 patients in all suture anchors group and 47 in the metal anchors group were identified as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic profile of both groups was comparable. There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two suture anchor groups as per Rowe (pre-operative 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24 and post-operative 2 years 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2) and WOSI (pre-operative 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46 and post-operative 2 years 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25) scores. There was a significant improvement in both the groups between preoperative and post-operative ROWE and WOSI scores at 6 months and 2 years follow-up as compared to pre-operative scores (p<0.001). Re-dislocation rates were also comparable (4.8% vs 6.3%).

Conclusion

All-suture anchors showed comparable clinical and functional results as the metal anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair at two-year follow-up.

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.

Anchor Arthropathy of the Shoulder Joint After Instability Repair: Outcomes Improve With Revision Surgery

PURPOSE

To report clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision surgery after diagnosis of anchor-induced arthropathy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision arthroscopic shoulder surgery and were diagnosed with post-instability glenohumeral arthropathy performed from January 2006 to May 2018 were included in the current study. Patients were excluded if they underwent prior open shoulder procedures, if glenoid bone loss was present, or if prerevision imaging and records were incomplete or not available. Data included initial diagnosis and index procedure performed, presenting arthropathy symptoms including duration, exam findings before revision surgery, and surgical intervention. PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included with a mean (± standard deviation) age at presentation of 35.2 ± 12.1 years (range 16 to 59). The follow-up rate was 86%, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 1.1 to 10.6). Mean time to development of arthropathy symptoms was 48.2 months (range <1 month to 13.8 years), all presenting with pain and decreased range of motion on exam. At time of revision surgery, all patients underwent either open or arthroscopic removal of previous implants, including anchors and suture material. Six patients underwent additional revision stabilization procedures, 1 underwent total shoulder arthroplasty, and 7 underwent arthroscopic intraarticular debridement, capsular release, and chondroplasty with or without microfracture. Pain significantly improved in 79% of patients (P = .05). Significant improvements in all PROMs were observed, including 12-item Short Form (43.8 to 54.8, P < .01); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, shortened version (31.8 to 8.4, P < .01); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (47.0 to 84.5, P < .05); and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (61.6 to 92.1, P < .01). Average external rotation significantly improved, from 31° ± 22° to 52° ± 24° (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Rapid intervention after diagnosis, through either revision arthroscopic or open debridement and stabilization, can lead to significant improvement in range of motion, pain, and overall patient function and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

Comparison between all-suture and biocomposite anchors in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Suture anchors have revolutionized arthroscopic surgery, enabling direct soft tissue-to-bone repair. There are many types of anchors still used in arthroscopic shoulder operations. We sought to compare the clinical outcome of all-suture and biocomposite anchors when used in arthroscopic Bankart repair for patients suffering from anterior shoulder instability.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study of 30 patients (mean age: 26.6 years, SD: 8.8 years, male/female ratio: 5/1, mean follow up: 28 months, SD: 23.8, range: 12-92) with anterior shoulder instability was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 groups based upon the type of suture anchors used for the Bankart repair: group A (14 patients) used only all-suture anchors and group B (16 patients) used only biocomposite anchors. Outcomes reported were postoperative dislocations, positive shoulder apprehension test, self-reported sense of shoulder instability, return to activities of daily living, return to sports, patient satisfaction and complications. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used were the Rowe Score for Instability, Constant Shoulder Score, Walch Duplay Score, The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and external rotation at 90° of arm abduction, external rotation at 0° of arm abduction, forward flexion, abduction, adduction and internal rotation.

Results

Rates of postoperative shoulder dislocation demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (p > .05). Four postoperative dislocations happened, two in each group (14.3% and 12.5% for all suture only and biocomposite only groups, respectively), with three of them being traumatic. In addition, no significant differences were observed amongst groups regarding shoulder apprehension test (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 93.8%), sense of shoulder instability (7.1% vs. 6.3%), return to activities of daily living (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 93.8%), return to sports (group A: 85.7% vs. group B: 87.5%), patient satisfaction (moderate level: group A 21.4% vs. group B 12.5%), and PROMs.

Conclusion

The short-term failure rate and clinical/functional outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair using all-suture anchors is similar to the use of biocompatible anchors.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Arthroscopic Bankart revision using all suture anchor in recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation: A case report

•

All suture anchor has the same biomechanical strength as conventional metallic anchor.

•

Recurrent shoulder dislocation after arthroscopic Bankart repair is still a problem.

•

The all suture anchor technique offers benefit of bone preservation and strong fixation.

Introduction

Arthroscopic Bankart revision after recurrent shoulder dislocation is still a matter of discussion. Several factors are contributing to this injury. Recently the development of all suture anchors has grown in popularity in arthroscopic stabilization. It was proven to preserve bone stock, smaller in size thus more anchors can be made.

Presentation of case

We presented a case of 27-year-old woman with recurrent anterior dislocation after seven years of arthroscopic Bankart repair. Seven years before, we performed Bankart repair using three 2.8 mm fiber-wire anchor (FASTak® (Arthrex, Karsfield Germany)). For the revision surgery we performed arthroscopic revision using four all suture anchor technique (Y-Knot® Flex All-Suture Anchor, 1.3 mm – One strand of #2 Hi-Fi® (Conmed, New York)).

Discussion

From preoperative and intraoperative assessment, we found no anchor failure and no massive bony lesion. To preserve the bone stock we insert four all suture anchors between the old anchor. One year post-operative follow up showed that patient could gain normal range of movement. No early or late complications were observed.

Conclusion

Compared to the conventional metallic anchor, all suture anchor has the same biomechanical strength. Moreover due to its relatively small size, it can reserve bone stock and more anchors can be made thus adding more stability to the shoulder.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with knotless suture anchors: A comparison of the permanent and absorbable types

Aim:

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) using two types of knotless suture anchors (KSAs) in patients with post-traumatic recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability (AGHI).

Methods:

Thirty-two patients underwent an ABR using KSAs: a permanent KSA (PushLock) and an absorbable counterpart (BioKnotless). There were 16 patients in each group. Pre-and post-operative assessment for shoulder function using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant–Murley scores, recurrence of instability, post-operative limitation of external rotation (ER) and ability to return to pre-injury level were recorded in both groups.

Results:

Both groups displayed significant improvements in functional scores ( p < 0.0001) without a significant difference between the groups. Of the 32 patients, 9.4% had recurrence of instability (one re-dislocation in group 1 and two symptomatic subluxations in group 2). Return to pre-injury level occurred in 87.5% and 81.3% of group 1 and group 2, respectively. There was 2° to 3° loss of ER after ABR in both groups; the difference between the groups was not significant ( p = 0.45).

Conclusion:

ABR for recurrent AGHI using a permanent or absorbable KSA offers comparable successful outcomes; no significant statistical difference was found.