Failed anterior shoulder stabilization

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.

The Influence of Exposure in Training to the Open Bankart on the Declining Current Use of the Procedure

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of exposure to the open Bankart during residency and fellowship on the trend toward obsolescence of the procedure. Our hypothesis was that the open Bankart would be used with decreasing frequency and that this would be related to lack of exposure to the procedure during training.

METHODS

A survey consisting of 10 questions about their experience with the open Bankart procedure in residency, fellowship, and practice, as well as their current usage of it and other operations, was sent to members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Respondents were divided into groups based on the year of completion of training.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis of the responses revealed a notable trend of progressively diminished use of the open Bankart by those trained before 2000 compared with those completing training between 2001 and 2017. Ancillary findings included more surgeons using the open Bankart for revision cases than as a primary procedure and many using the Latarjet for patients with less than 15% or even no glenoid bone loss.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that a statistically notable trend of the decreasing use of the open Bankart was observed despite excellent reported outcomes and that its current role is most likely as a revision procedure. Lack of exposure to the operation in training is a major factor in its decline, and this decreasing exposure is self-perpetuating.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Survey.

Management of Failed Surgery for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: Synopsis of Clinical Evidence

Failed surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability should be treated according to clinical principles similar to primary stabilization by addressing risk factors related to the damaged static glenohumeral stabilizers (labrum, capsule and its components, and bony damage to the humeral head and scapular glenoid). In relatively rare conditions when failed primary surgery involves patients with functionally low demands, conservative treatment by strengthening dynamic muscular stabilizers might be considered; otherwise, surgical revision should be strongly considered aimed at improving quality of life. Although the overall failure rate following primary and revision surgery is expected to be below 4%, it is clear that revision surgery is technically demanding. Therefore, the initial recognition and correction of the exact pathology causing glenohumeral instability is crucial to avoid failure of primary surgery and to facilitate the success of the revision procedure, if necessary.

Postoperative MR Imaging in Shoulder Instability and Intra-articular Damage

MR imaging of the postoperative shoulder after instability surgery is challenging. The radiologist must be familiar with surgical procedures, altered anatomy, and expected postoperative findings for correct interpretation of normal findings versus a true pathology. Artifacts from metallic hardware or abrasions further complicate MR image interpretation, but are reduced with metal artifact reduction techniques. This article focuses on capsulolabral surgery, bone block transfers, and humeral bone loss procedures in patients with shoulder instability and their postoperative imaging evaluation. Surgical procedures and common complications are explained, and normal and pathologic postoperative imaging findings are presented.

The Role of Arthroscopic Soft Tissue Reconstruction for Failed Bristow-Latarjet Procedure

PURPOSE

To analyze the functional results after unipolar or bipolar arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization in the treatment of recurrent anterior instability after a coracoid bone block procedure.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective series of 41 patients (33 male, 8 female) with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bristow (n = 7) or Latarjet (n = 34) coracoid bone block treated with unipolar (isolated Bankart, n = 22) or bipolar (Bankart + Hill-Sachs remplissage, n = 19) arthroscopic stabilization.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 72 (25-208) months. Severe glenoid erosion (>25%) was found in 17 patients, and a medium or deep Hill-Sachs lesion (Calandra 2 and 3) was found in 24 patients. A radiographic control was available in 28 patients at final follow-up. Five patients (12%) presented a recurrence of instability (4 subluxations, 1 dislocation). Two patients required revision surgery, 1 in each group. At final follow-up, persistent anterior apprehension was more frequent in patients presenting with severe glenoid bone loss (P = .04) and in patients with medium or deep Hill-Sachs lesions who were treated with unipolar stabilization (P = .04). Return to sports was achieved in 81% of cases. Visual analog scale was 1.3 ± 2, subjective shoulder value was 83% ± 18%, Rowe score was 78 ± 24, and Walch-Duplay score was 76 ± 28. No patients developed severe glenohumeral arthritis (Samilson 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization provides good functional results after failed coracoid bone block with an acceptable rate of recurrence and a return to sports in most cases. Patients with significant Hill-Sachs lesions showed better results when treated with combined Bankart repair and Hill-Sachs remplissage. Severe glenoid bone loss was associated with poorer functional results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Multiple Subscapularis Tendon Sign: A New Risk Factor for Recurrence After Arthroscopic Anterior Shoulder Instability Surgery

Background:

Being able to predict recurrence after the treatment of shoulder instability would be helpful in planning the appropriate treatment.

Purpose:

To define the multiple subscapularis tendon sign (MSTS) as a novel anatomic variant and a possible risk factor for the recurrence of shoulder instability after anterior stabilization and to evaluate it, together with the other risk factors as described in the literature.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 87 patients met the study criteria and underwent arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability. The MSTS was evaluated in this study group. Age, sex, hand dominance, number of preoperative shoulder dislocations, history of overhead or contact sports participation, type of labral lesion, number of anchors used in surgery, presence of the drive-through sign, presence of the MSTS, Oxford Shoulder Score results, and the association of these parameters with recurrence were assessed. The mean follow-up time was 81.0 ± 27.9 months (range, 48-139 months).

Results:

Nine (10.3%) patients experienced recurrent instability. The presence of the MSTS (P = .009), existence of an anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA) lesion (P = .04), and history of overhead or contact sports participation (P = .04) were significant risk factors for recurrence. The recurrence rates were as follows: 30.7% with the MSTS; 40% with the MSTS and an ALPSA lesion; and 75% with the MSTS, an ALPSA lesion, and a history of overhead or contact sports participation.

Conclusion:

The MSTS is a variation of the anterior shoulder joint capsule. It is a sign of capsular insufficiency or thinning, which may be a risk factor for recurrence after anterior stabilization. Considering the low success rates of anterior capsulolabral repair in patients participating in overhead or contact sports, especially when an ALPSA lesion is present, encountering the MSTS during surgery in this at-risk group may be an indicator for the surgeon to choose the surgical procedure more carefully.

Mini-open Repair of the Floating Anterior Inferior Glenohumeral Ligament: Combined Treatment of Bankart and Humeral Avulsion of the Glenohumeral Ligament Lesions

Anterior shoulder instability often results from avulsion of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament (aIGHL) off its insertion on the glenoid, yielding a Bankart lesion. Although less common, avulsion of the ligament attachment to the humerus results in a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion. Combined Bankart and HAGL lesions, also termed the "floating aIGHL," create a complex pathology that is not detailed significantly in the literature. We believe a mini-open approach is a viable and reproducible procedure for treatment because it allows for protection of the axillary nerve and other neurovascular structures while providing optimal exposure to both the humeral insertion site of the distal aIGHL and the Bankart lesion, ensuring anatomic restoration. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe our preferred technique to surgically treat the floating aIGHL, consisting of an anterior HAGL and concomitant Bankart lesion repair through a mini-open approach.

Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Technical Factors

PURPOSE

Recurrent instability remains of concern after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction. We evaluated various technical factors including anchor design, anchor material, number of anchors used, and interval closure on risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines. Extracted data were recorded on a standardized form. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess study quality and risk bias. Because of study heterogeneity and low levels of evidence, meta-analysis was not possible. Pooled weighted means were calculated and individual study evaluation and comparisons (qualitative analysis) were performed for systematic review.

RESULTS

Of 2097 studies identified, 26 met criteria for systematic review. Pooled weighted means revealed 11.4% versus 15% recurrent instability with 3 or more suture anchors versus fewer than 3 anchors, 10.1% versus 7.8% with absorbable versus nonabsorbable suture anchors, respectively, and 8.0% versus 9.4% with knotless versus standard anchors, respectively. Interval closure did not qualitatively decrease recurrent instability or decrease range of motion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review reveals that despite individual study, and previous systematic reviews pointing to the contrary, the composite contemporary published literature would support no difference in the risk of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction with rotator interval closure, differing numbers of anchors used for the repair, use of knotless versus standard anchors, or use of bioabsorbable versus nonabsorbable anchors. We recommend surgeons focus on factors that have been shown to modify the risk factors after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction, such as patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Mid-term to long-term outcome of the open Bankart repair for recurrent traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term outcome of the open Bankart repair for traumatic, recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder by evaluation of recurrence, range of motion, return to sports, arthritis, patient satisfaction, and outcome measures.

METHODS

Of 162 patients, 127 patients (mean age, 31 years) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 17.1 years (5-24) after undergoing an open Bankart repair using suture anchors. An independent orthopedic surgeon obtained a history and examined each for range of motion. Radiographs for arthritis and osteolysis were obtained unless the patient refused. Questionnaires including return to sports and function as well as satisfaction and outcome measures were completed by all patients.

RESULTS

There was 1 recurrent dislocation (0.8%) and 1 recurrent subluxation (0.8%) but no pain or apprehension. All remaining shoulders were stable. Compared with the normal shoulder, there was statistical difference in external rotation in abduction and at the side as well as in internal rotation but not in forward elevation or abduction. However, no patient considered any measurable loss functionally significant. Of 107 patients who participated in sports, 98 returned to the sport; 7 of the remaining 9 discontinued for reasons other than the shoulder. There were 91 patients who agreed to radiography; 48 had normal findings, 34 had mild arthrosis, 9 had moderate arthrosis, and none had severe arthrosis. Mean postoperative outcome scores were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 93.53; Rowe, 91.41; and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 327.7. There were 125 patients who were satisfied and would undergo the procedure again.

CONCLUSION

The open Bankart procedure remains the standard by which other techniques can be measured for treatment of recurrent, traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder.

Three-dimensional volume measurement of coracoid graft osteolysis after arthroscopic Latarjet procedure

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

The Latarjet procedure has been shown to be a reliable method to prevent recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Coracoid bone graft osteolysis is a potential catastrophic complication and can lead to recurrent instability. The purpose of our study is to present a novel quantitative method to measure the amount of coracoid bone osteolysis using 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scan imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study with 15 patients (16 shoulders) who underwent an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Three-dimensional CT scans were obtained at 6 weeks and 6 months. Using volumetric analysis, we quantified the amount of bone loss using our described method. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability were calculated.

RESULTS

On the basis of our new volumetric analysis of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure using 3D CT scans, we found that the superior half of the coracoid bone graft undergoes a significant amount of osteolysis at 6 months postoperatively. The interobserver reliability and intraobserver reliability were excellent.

DISCUSSION

This study presents a reproducible method to quantify and compare coracoid bone graft osteolysis after an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. We also developed a description system that may be used for comparison studies. To our knowledge, this is the first method that quantifies the amount of coracoid bone graft osteolysis using more accurate 3D CT scanning.

CONCLUSION

The 3D analysis we propose is a valid method to measure the amount of coracoid bone graft osteolysis after an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Our description system may guide the surgeon regarding possible revision surgery when faced with significant osteolysis of the coracoid bone graft.

Long-term effects on subscapularis integrity and function following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization with a low anteroinferior (5:30 o'clock) portal

PURPOSE

The use of a low anteroinferior (5:30 o'clock) portal for arthroscopic shoulder stabilization allows an anatomical refixation of the capsulolabral complex. This anteroinferior portal, however, penetrates the inferior subscapularis (SSC), which is criticized. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the functional and structural properties of the SSC in patients with anteroinferior shoulder stabilization. The hypothesis was that it does not harm the SSC by demonstrating full muscular function and imaging-based normal structure at a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Twenty patients were examined (14 males and six females; mean age 37.0 years) retrospectively after a mean follow-up of 9.6 years. At final follow-up, clinical examination and clinical scores (ASES, Constant-Murley, WOSI, and Rowe score) were documented. Additionally, SSC strength was evaluated with a custom-made electronic force measurement plate. All patients underwent bilateral magnetic resonance imaging to assess structural integrity and fatty infiltration (grading according to Fuchs et al.) of the SSC. Furthermore, vertical and transversal (superior and inferior) diameters of the muscle and the muscle area in a parasagittal plane were measured.

RESULTS

Clinical scores revealed good-to-excellent long-term results (ASES 92 points, Constant-Murley 82 points, WOSI 85 %, and Rowe 84 points). Force measurement in comparison with the contralateral side showed no significant (p > 0.05) differences for the 'belly-press' test (ipsilateral 102 N vs. contralateral 101 N) and the 'lift-off' test (73 vs. 69 N). There were also no significant differences between the mean diameters and the areas of the SSC muscle belly (vertical diameter ipsilateral 92 mm vs. contralateral 94 mm; superior transversal 28 vs. 29 mm; inferior transversal 34 vs. 34 mm; area 2336 vs. 2526 mm(2)).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic labral repair with a low anteroinferior portal demonstrates no signs of structural and functional impairment of the SSC after 9.6 year follow-up. For clinical relevance, the lower part of the SSC can be penetrated for an optimal anchor placement in shoulder instabilities or Bankart fractures without concerns of a negative long-term effect on the SSC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

Open Bankart repair for revision of failed prior stabilization: outcome analysis at a mean of more than 10 years

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome of open Bankart repair for failed stabilization surgery at a mean follow-up of >10 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients underwent revision open Bankart repair by a single surgeon for failed prior stabilization surgery, with a standard technique and postoperative rehabilitation. All patients were referred by other surgeons. Evaluation was by an independent examiner, at a mean follow-up of 10.2 years. Evaluation included a history, physical examination for range of motion, outcome scores, recurrence, return to athletics, and radiographic examination.

RESULTS

All cases had persistent Bankart and Hill-Sachs lesions. Failures included 14 patients with a failed single arthroscopic Bankart repair; 1 patient with 2 failed arthroscopic Bankart repairs; 1 patient with an arthroscopic failure and an open Bankart repair; 7 patients with failed open Bankart repairs; and 1 patient with a failed open Bankart repair, then a failed arthroscopic attempt. Two patients had had thermal capsulorrhaphy; 2 others had staple capsulorrhaphy, 1 with an open capsular shift and 1 after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair, an open Bankart repair, and then a coracoid transfer. All arthroscopic Bankart repairs had anchors placed medial and superior on the glenoid neck. Mean motion loss compared with the normal contralateral side was as follows: elevation 1.15°, abduction 4.2°, external rotation at the side 3.2°, external rotation in abduction 5.1°, and internal rotation 0.6 vertebral levels (NS). No patient had an apprehension sign, pain, or instability. Of 23 who played sports, 22 resumed after. Outcomes scores were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 89.44; Rowe, 86.67; Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 476.26. On radiographic examination, there were 13 normal radiographs and 7 with mild, 2 with moderate, and 0 with severe arthritic changes.

CONCLUSION

The open Bankart repair offers a reliable, consistently successful option for revision of failed stabilizations.

Glenoid Rim Anatomy: Risk for Glenoid Vault Perforation During Labral Repair

Background:

Injuries to the glenoid labrum frequently require repair with anchors. Placing anchor devices arthroscopically can be challenging, and anchor malpositioning can complicate surgical outcomes.

Purpose:

To determine the safe insertion range and optimal insertion angle of glenoid labral anchors at various positions on the glenoid rim and to establish surgical guidelines that minimize risk of anchor perforation.

Study Design:

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods:

Three-dimensional computed tomography scans of 30 normal cadaveric specimens were obtained. A virtual model of a generic labral anchor was inserted into the rim of the glenoid at the clockface positions represented by 12:00, 1:30, 3:00, 4:30, 6:00, 7:30, 9:00, and 10:30. At each position, the safe insertion range was the maximal range measured, and the optimal insertion angle was identified as the angle between the bisector of the safe insertion range and the glenoid face.

Results:

Progressing in the clockwise direction, beginning at the 12:00 position, the safe insertion ranges (mean ± SD ) were 55.9° ± 10.6°, 63.6° ± 17.6°, 47.7° ± 9.1°, 46.1° ± 8°, 73.9° ± 9.7°, 40.9° ± 6.5°, 40.4° ± 7.4°, and 39.9° ± 7.1°, respectively. The optimal insertion angles were 47.9° ± 7.6°, 53.1° ± 10.9°, 35.0° ± 4.4°, 42.4° ± 4.9°, 60.9° ± 8.4°, 36.6° ± 5.9°, 31.2° ± 4.9°, 34.8° ± 4.6°, respectively.

Conclusion:

Optimal insertion angles and safe insertion ranges varied significantly with respect to the position on the glenoid face. The safe insertion range and optimal insertion angle were found to be wider at the anterior glenoid as compared with the posterior glenoid. A posterolateral insertion angle was safer than an anterior insertion angle at the 10:30 position.

Clinical Relevance:

Proper arthroscopic technique resulting in anchor insertion at the correct angle, depth, and location will prevent anchor-related glenohumeral complications such as glenoid perforation, cartilage damage, persistent pain, decreased range of motion, and failure of the reconstruction.

Surgical treatment of significant glenoid bone defects and associated humeral avulsions of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesions in anterior shoulder instability

PURPOSE

Combined occurrence of humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion and a significant glenoid bone defect is an unusual and previously undescribed association in traumatic anterior shoulder instability. The purpose of this study was (1) to report a retrospective case series of seven anterior bony instability patients who were diagnosed with this unusual association and (2) to evaluate the results of a modified Latarjet procedure and simultaneous HAGL repair using a new subscapularis-sparing approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the records of 64 anterior shoulder instability patients who underwent bony stabilization surgery was performed, and patients who underwent a combined reconstruction for significant glenohumeral bone defects (glenoid loss >20 %) and an associated HAGL lesion were identified. Pre- and postoperative follow-up clinical parameters and functional scores were documented (Oxford shoulder instability score [OSIS], Western Ontario shoulder instability index [WOSI]), Rowe score). Radiological assessment included measurement of the glenoid bone defect (CT scan) and evaluation of soft tissue lesions (MR arthrogram).

RESULTS

Radiological and arthroscopic evaluation confirmed the combined lesion complex in 7 (11 %) patients. Follow-up evaluation (mean 20.6 months) suggested an excellent outcome (Rowe score: median 95, range 95-100); a statistically significant improvement was seen in the follow-up OSIS (median 12, range 12-14, p = 0.018) and WOSI score (median 28, range 17-102, p = 0.018) as compared to the preoperative score (median OSIS 50, range 32-53; median WOSI 1,084, range 919-1,195). Clinical tests for subscapularis function revealed a functional subscapularis muscle; no significant differences were detected in pre- versus postoperative internal rotation strength and in the operated versus normal contralateral shoulder (ns). The dual-window subscapularis-sparing approach provided adequate exposure for combined reconstruction of the humeral and glenoid lesions, and no complications were encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant glenoid defects are associated with HAGL lesions in approximately 1/10th of patients with bony instability. Combined reconstruction of these lesions via a subscapularis-sparing approach results in an excellent outcome and significant improvement in functional scores at a medium-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level IV.

Outcomes of two surgical revision techniques for recurrent anterior shoulder instability following selective capsular repair

INTRODUCTION

Conventional capsulolabral reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability fails with recurrent instability in up to 23% of cases. Few studies have evaluated surgical revision strategies and outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes in a homogeneous series of surgical revisions after selective capsular repair (SCR).

HYPOTHESIS

Observed anatomic lesions can guide the choice between repeat SCR and coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2005 to January 2009, 11 patients with trauma-related recurrent anterior shoulder instability (episodes of subluxation and/or dislocation) after SCR were included. Mean age was 31 years (range, 19-45 years). At revision, a glenoid bony defect was present in six patients. Repeat SCR was performed in five patients and coracoid transfer in six patients.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 40 months (range, 24-65 months), no patient had experienced further episodes of instability. However, four patients had a positive apprehension test. External rotation decreased significantly by more than 20° after both techniques. The Simple Shoulder Test, Walch-Duplay, and Rowe scores were 10.5, 79, and 85, respectively. No patient had a subscapularis tear. Of these 11 patients, nine were able to resume their sporting activities and eight reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the subjective outcome. Radiographs showed fibrous non-union of the coracoid transfer in one patient.

CONCLUSION

In patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after SCR, repeat SCR and coracoid transfer produce similarly satisfactory outcomes. The size of the glenoid bone defect may be the best criterion for choosing between these two procedures. However, open revision surgery may decrease the range of motion, most notably in external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

[Results of revision after failed surgical treatment for traumatic anterior shoulder instability]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Persistent or recurrent glenohumeral instability after a previous operative stabilization can be a complex problem. Our aim is to establish the incidence of recurrence and its revision surgery, and to analyse the functional results of the revision instability surgery, as well as to determine surgical protocols to perform it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 16 patients with recurrent instability out of 164 patients operated on between 1999 and 2011. The mean follow-up was 57 months and the mean age was 29 years. To evaluate functional outcome we employed Constant, Rowe, UCLA scores and the visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Of the 12 patients who failed the initial arthroscopic surgery, 6 patients underwent an arthroscopic antero-inferior labrum repair technique, 4 using open labrum repair techniques, and 2 coracoid transfer. The two cases of open surgery with recurrences underwent surgery for coracoid transfer. Results of the Constant score were excellent or good in 64% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical revision of instability is a complex surgery essentially for two reasons: the difficulty in recognising the problem, and the technical demand (greater variety and the increasingly complex techniques).