Evaluation of the Instability Severity Index score in predicting failure following arthroscopic Bankart surgery in an active military population

What keeps a shoulder stable - Is there an ideal method for anterior stabilisation?

The gleno-humeral joint is by far the most mobile in the human body but also afflicted by dislocations, predominantly anterior. Surgical stabilisation is often successful but failures not uncommon. The following review describes potential causes of failure and highlights the need of adapting surgical methods to pathomorphology.

Review of Burkhart and DeBeer's (2000) article on traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair: Where have we taken the concept of glenoid bone loss in 2023?

This classic discusses the original publication by Burkhart and DeBeer "Traumatic Glenohumeral Bone Defects and Their Relationship to Failure of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair" published in 2000 in Arthroscopy. At that time, the authors sought to understand the reasons behind the failure of arthroscopic soft tissue repair. Based on their findings, the authors introduced the concept of the inverted pear glenoid and engaging Hill-Sachs lesion which is now part of the orthopedic lexicon. The importance of bony pathologic changes in anterior glenohumeral instability has become so apparent, that it now forms the basis of clinical understanding and underpins treatment algorithms. Since this publication over 20 years ago, the idea of glenohumeral bone loss has been extensively explored and refined. There is no doubt of the importance of structural bone loss yet there is still uncertainty as to the best management of those with subcritical bone loss. The purpose of revisiting this classic article is to look at where we are in understanding recurrent instability and bony deficiency while appreciating how far we have come. This review begins with a detailed summary of the classic article along with a historic perspective. Next, we look at the current evidence as it pertains to the classic article and how modern technology and innovation has advanced our ability to assess and quantify glenohumeral bone loss. We finish with expert commentary on the topic from two current surgeons with a research interest in shoulder instability to offer an insight into how modern surgeons view and address this issue. One of the original authors also reflects on the topic. The findings of this classic study changed the way we think about shoulder instability and opened the doors to an exciting body of research that is still growing today. Future research offers an opportunity for high quality evidence to guide management in the group of patients with subcritical bone loss and we eagerly await the results.

Glenoid Bone Loss in Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss has been reported to occur in as many as 86% of patients with recurrent shoulder stability. This systematic review evaluated the amount of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation and with worse patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. We hypothesized that the percentage of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair is lower than the previously proposed critical value of 25%.

METHODS

The systematic review included 528 patients with glenoid bone loss from 3 clinical studies. The percentage of bone loss was the value quantified and reported in each study. Failure was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation. The percentage of glenoid bone loss associated with recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation after arthroscopic Bankart labral repair was analyzed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

Recurrent dislocation or subluxation occurred in 23.7% (125) of 528 patients in the pooled study cohort. There was a significant difference in age between those in whom the arthroscopic Bankart repair failed and those in whom it did not (22.9 versus 24.3 years; p = 0.009). The ROC curve analysis demonstrated that ≥16.0% glenoid bone loss was predictive of recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation (Youden index = 0.59, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 80%). In patients who did not sustain a recurrent dislocation or subluxation, the ROC curve analysis demonstrated that 20.0% glenoid bone loss was predictive of a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score of <85% (Youden index = 0.93, sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The critical amount of glenoid bone loss associated with an increased risk of persistent instability was found to be less than previously reported. Glenoid bone loss of ≥16.0% was found to place patients at higher risk for recurrent shoulder dislocation or subluxation after treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Beach-Chair Versus Lateral Decubitus Positioning for Primary Arthroscopic Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Consecutive Series of 641 Shoulders

BACKGROUND

There are limited data comparing the beach-chair (BC) versus lateral decubitus (LD) position for arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization.

PURPOSE

To identify predictors of instability recurrence and revision after anterior shoulder stabilization and evaluate surgical position and glenoid bone loss as independent predictors of recurrence and revision at short- and midterm follow-ups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 641 arthroscopic anterior stabilization procedures were performed from 2005 to 2019. All shoulders were evaluated for glenohumeral bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and revision. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships of outcomes with age, position, glenoid bone loss group, and track.

RESULTS

A total of 641 shoulders with a mean age of 22.3 years (SD, 4.45 years) underwent stabilization and were followed for a mean of 6 years. The overall 1-year recurrent instability rate was 3.3% (21/641) and the revision rate was 2.8% (18/641). At 1 year, recurrence was observed in 2.3% (11/487) and 6.5% (10/154) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. The 5-year recurrence and revision rates were 15.7% (60/383) and 12.8% (49/383), respectively. At 5 years, recurrence was observed in 16.4% (48/293) and 13.3% (12/90) of BC and LD shoulders, respectively. Multivariable modeling demonstrated that surgical position was not associated with a risk of recurrence after 1 year (odds ratio [OR] for LD vs BC, 1.39; P = .56) and 5 years (OR for LD vs BC, 1.32; P = .43), although younger age at index surgery was associated with a higher risk of instability recurrence (OR, 1.73 per SD [4.1 years] decrease in age; P < .03). After 1 and 5 years, surgical position results were similar in a separate multivariable logistic regression model of revision surgery as the dependent variable, when adjusted for age, surgical position, bone loss group, and track. At 5 years, younger age was an independent risk factor for revision: OR 1.68 per SD (4.1 years) decrease in age (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Among fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, there was no difference in rates of recurrence and revision surgery after performing arthroscopic anterior stabilization in either the BC or the LD position at 1- and 5-year follow-ups. In multivariable analysis, younger age, but not surgical position, was an independent risk factor for recurrence.

Anterior Shoulder Instability and Open Procedures: History, Indications, and Clinical Outcomes

The shoulder, being the most mobile joint in the human body, is often susceptible to dislocations and subluxations more so than other joints. As such, shoulder instability constitutes a common complaint among patients worldwide, especially those who are young, participate in contact sports, and have increased innate flexibility in their joints. Management options in the setting of instability vary between conservative and surgical options that aim to mitigate symptoms and allow return of function. Surgical options can be arthroscopic and open, with a general shift among surgeons towards utilizing arthroscopic surgery in the past several decades. Nevertheless, open procedures still play a role in managing shoulder instability patients, especially those with significant bone loss, recurrent instability, coexisting shoulder pathologies, and high risk of failure with arthroscopic surgery. In these clinical settings, open procedures, like the Latarjet procedure, open Bankart repair, glenoid bone augmentation using iliac crest autograft or distal tibial allograft, and salvage options like glenohumeral arthrodesis and arthroplasty may show good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates. Each of these open procedures possesses its own set of advantages and disadvantages and entails a specific set of indications based on published literature. It is important to cater treatment options to the individual patient in order to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Future research on open shoulder stabilization procedures should focus on the long-term outcomes of recently utilized procedures, investigate different graft options for procedures involving bone augmentation, and conduct additional comparative analyses in order to establish concrete surgical management guidelines.

Surgical treatment of shoulder instability in active-duty service members with subcritical glenoid bone loss: Bankart vs. Latarjet

INTRODUCTION

Subcritical bone loss has been identified as a risk factor for potentially inferior outcomes following typical arthroscopic soft tissue repair. One alternative that has been presented as an option for patients with bone loss is the Latarjet, an ipsilateral coracoid transfer to the anteroinferior glenoid. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in patients with subcritical bone loss. We hypothesize that the open Latarjet will provide higher patient-reported outcome measure scores and lower rates of dislocation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort comparison of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability procedures was performed. Inclusion criteria included symptomatic anterior shoulder instability, subcritical glenoid bone loss (13.5%-24%), surgical treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet, and minimum follow-up of 2 years. Outcomes included recurrent instability (defined as postoperative dislocation or subjective subluxation), permanent physical restrictions, Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were included, 25 of whom underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair and 23 patients an open Latarjet. The average bone loss was 17.8% and 19.3%, respectively. Overall, 8 patients experienced recurrent instability, 6 in the arthroscopic Bankart group and 2 in the open Latarjet group (P = .162). The average postoperative SANE score for arthroscopic Bankart group was 48% and for the open Latarjet group, 84% (P < .001). The average postoperative WOSI score for the arthroscopic Bankart group was 53.6% and for the open Latarjet group, 67.9% (P = .069). There were significantly more patients placed on permanent physical restrictions in the arthroscopic Bankart repair group (16) compared with open Latarjet (3) (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss (defined as 13.5%-24%), patients treated with an open Latarjet have insignificantly higher SANE and WOSI scores and lower permanent physical restrictions than patients treated with an arthroscopic Bankart repair. We found no statistically significant difference in recurrent instability rates between the open Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair (P = .162).

"Nearly off-track lesions" or a short distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track does not seem to be accurate in predicting recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a military population: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

On-track lesions with a short distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track (nearly off-track) may predispose recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) in the general population. The aim of this study was to determine if a shorter distance between the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion and the medial edge of the glenoid track could accurately predict recurrence after an ABR in a high-demand military population. It was hypothesized that a shorter distance would not accurately predict recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective monocenter case-control study was performed at the Dutch Central Military Hospital. Patients with an on-track Hill-Sachs lesion who underwent a primary ABR between 2014 and 2019 with a minimal follow-up of 2 years and a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment received a questionnaire. The primary outcome was recurrence, defined as a complete dislocation or subluxation. Glenoid bone loss was assessed using a linear-based method on MRI. The distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track was defined as the distance to dislocation (DTD). A receiver operating characteristic curve was created to determine the predictive value of the DTD for recurrence. Logistic regression was used to determine preoperative risk factors that predispose recurrence. Covariates were selected based on univariable analysis and included gender, body mass index, age at surgery and first dislocation, laterality, smoking habits, overhead shoulder activity during work, preoperative dislocations, sports type and level, bony or labral lesions on MRI, and DTD.

RESULTS

In total, 80 patients with an average follow-up of 4.8 ± 1.9 years completed the questionnaire and were included in the analyses. Seventeen patients (21%) experienced recurrence at the final follow-up. No difference in DTD was observed among patients who experienced recurrence (9 ± 4 mm) compared with patients who did not (9 ± 5 mm; P = .81). The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated no predictive power of DTD for recurrence (area under the curve = 0.49). Smoking at the time of surgery (odds ratio: 3.9; confidence interval: 1.2-12.7; P = .02) and overhead shoulder movement during work (odds ratio: 9.3; confidence interval: 1.1-78.0; P = .04) were associated with recurrence according to the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

A shorter DTD demonstrated no accuracy in predicting recurrence in a military population. Smoking at the time of surgery and overhead shoulder activity during work were associated with recurrence; however, these analyses were underpowered to draw valid conclusions.

Inconsistencies in Controlling for Risk Factors for Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failure rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are highly variable in the current orthopaedic literature. Predictive factors for risk of failure have been studied to improve patient selection, refine surgical techniques, and define the role of bony procedures. However, significant heterogeneity in the analysis and controlling of risk factors makes evidence-based management decisions challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this systematic review were (1) to critically assess the consistency of reported risk factors for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, (2) to identify the existing studies with the most comprehensive inclusion of confounding factors in their analyses, and (3) to give recommendations for which factors should be reported consistently in future clinical studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. An initial search yielded 1754 titles, from which 56 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. A total of 29 full-text articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding recurrent anterior shoulder instability; (2) surgical procedures performed including arthroscopic anterior labral repair; (3) reported clinical outcome data including failure rate; and (4) assessment of risk factors for surgical failure. Further subanalyses were performed for 15 studies that included a multivariate analysis, 17 studies that included glenoid bone loss, and 8 studies that analyzed the Instability Severity Index Score.

RESULTS

After full-text review, 12 of the most commonly studied risk factors were identified and included in this review. The risk factors that were most consistently significant in multivariate analyses were off-track lesions (100%), glenoid bone loss (78%), Instability Severity Index Score (75%), level of sports participation (67%), number of anchors (67%), and younger age (63%). In studies of bone loss, statistical significance was more likely to be found using advanced imaging, with critical bone loss thresholds of 10% to 15%. Several studies found predictive thresholds of 2 to 4 for Instability Severity Index Score by receiver operating characteristic or multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Studies reporting risk factors for failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair often fail to control for known confounding variables. The factors with the most common statistical significance among 15 multivariate analyses are off-track lesions, glenoid bone loss, Instability Severity Index Score, level of sports participation, number of anchors, and younger age. Studies found significance more commonly with advanced imaging measurements or arthroscopic assessment of glenoid bone loss and with lower thresholds for the Instability Severity Index Score (2-4). Future studies should attempt to control for all relevant factors, use advanced imaging for glenoid bone loss measurements, and consider a lower predictive threshold for the Instability Severity Index Score.

Anteroinferior Glenoid Rim Fractures Are a Relatively Common Finding in Shoulder Instability Patients Aged 50 Years or Older but May Not Portend a Worse Prognosis

Purpose

To investigate the incidence of anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures (AGRFs) after anterior shoulder instability (ASI) in patients aged 50 years or older, identify risk factors for surgical intervention for AGRFs, compare initial treatment strategies, and compare clinical outcomes of patients with and without associated AGRFs.

Methods

An established geographic medical record system was used to identify patients aged 50 years or older with ASI between 1994 and 2016. Patients with radiographic evidence of AGRFs were identified and matched 1:1 to patients without AGRFs. Outcome measures included recurrent instability, recurrent pain events, conversion to arthroplasty, and osteoarthritis graded with the Samilson-Prieto classification for post-instability arthritis.

Results

Overall, 177 patients were identified, with a mean follow-up period of 10.8 years. Of these patients, 41 (23.2%) had AGRFs and were matched to 41 control patients without AGRFs. The average age was 58.6 and 58.2 years for the AGRF and control groups, respectively. Rates of surgical intervention (27% vs 49%), recurrent instability (12% vs 20%), progression of osteoarthritis (34% vs 39%), and conversion to arthroplasty (2% vs 5%) were similar between AGRF patients and controls. For patients with AGRFs, increased bone fragment size (odds ratio, 1.1) and increased body mass index (odds ratio, 1.2) correlated with an increased risk of surgery. The cutoff value for an increased risk of surgery in patients with AGRFs was a fragment size 33% of the glenoid width or greater.

Conclusions

Of patients aged 50 years or older at presentation of ASI, 23.2% presented with an associated AGRF. A fragment size 33% of the glenoid width or greater and a higher patient body mass index were significant factors for surgical intervention; however, most patients did not require surgery and still showed acceptable clinical outcomes, and the most common reason for surgical intervention was a rotator cuff tear. Overall, the presence of an AGRF did not portend a worse prognosis as treatment strategies and long-term outcomes including recurrent instability, progression of osteoarthritis, and conversion to arthroplasty were similar to those in patients without AGRFs.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

There is No Difference in Return to Duty Following the Latarjet With Subscapularis Split Versus Tenotomy Technique in the Military Population

Purpose

To evaluate the return to duty rates between subscapularis split versus subscapularis tenotomy approach to the Latarjet procedure in an active-duty military population.

Methods

A total of 46 patients were identified. Thirty-six (87.8%) were able to be contacted and included in the study. Operative technique, time to return to duty, and postoperative range of motion were collected. Patients were contacted telephonically to collect information on recurrent dislocation and time to pass first physical fitness test postoperatively. The primary outcome was time to return to full-duty status designated by passing a Physical Fitness Test. Secondary outcomes were redislocations and final range of motion.

Results

In total, 36 of 41 (87.8%) patients were able to be contacted. There was no difference in return to duty rates designated by completion of first Physical Fitness Test for both groups (P = .23). In the subscapularis split group, 22 of 23 patients returned to full-duty at an average of 8.0 months versus the tenotomy group, with 12 of 13 patients returned to full-duty at an average of 8.7 months. There was also no difference with re-dislocation incidence for both groups of 0.08 (P = .45). Both groups had one patient each who was unable to return to full duty. There were no differences in postoperative forward flexion and external rotation, but abduction was 9° higher in the split compared to the tenotomy group (P = .03).

Conclusions

In the military patient with anterior glenohumeral instability, the Latarjet using the subscapularis split and subscapularis tenotomy approach demonstrate similar return to duty rates and similar duration to pass a standardized fitness assessment. There was no clinically significant difference in postoperative range of motion. Both approaches produce similar results clinically; and should be chosen based on surgeon preference.

Level of Evidence

III, retrospective cohort study.

Surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss with the Latarjet procedure in active-duty military service members

INTRODUCTION

The arthroscopic Bankart repair in the setting of glenoid bone loss has high rates of failure. In patients with anterior glenoid bone loss, the Latarjet provides glenohumeral stability through restoration of the glenoid bone, the conjoint tendon acting as a sling on the subscapularis, and anterior capsulolabral repair. Active-duty military personnel are at high risk for glenohumeral instability and have been equated to the contact athlete; most are young, male, and engage in contact sports. The purpose of this study is to assess the return to full-duty rates in active-duty military personnel following the Latarjet for anterior glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all glenohumeral instability procedures were reviewed at a tertiary training hospital from June 2014 to June 2019. The patient population consisted of active-duty military personnel with glenoid bone loss and anterior glenohumeral instability, who were treated with a Latarjet. The primary outcome was return to full-duty status.

RESULTS

There were 50 patients identified for the study. Four patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 46 of 50 patients (92.0%) eligible for this study. The average age at the time of the index procedure was 23.1 years. The average percentage bone loss was 18.4%. Forty-one patients (89.1%) were able to return to full-duty status. Four patients (8.7%) sustained a recurrent dislocation following the Latarjet; all 4 dislocations occurred during a combat deployment. Four patients (8.7%) reported episodes of subluxation without dislocation. Forty-one patients (89.1%) reported that their shoulders felt stable, and we found an average return to full duty at 5.3 months CONCLUSION: In our active-duty military cohort, we found an 8.7% rate of recurrent instability after a Latarjet procedure, and 41 patients (89.1%) were able to return to full-duty status. In conclusion, the Latarjet procedure in the active-duty military population with anterior glenoid bone loss resulted in a high rate of return to duty, excellent functional outcomes, low rate of recurrent instability, and a low overall complication rate.

Editorial Commentary: The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score Can, in Part, Help to Predict Failure After Nonoperative Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Fix Them All Versus Wait and See?

The optimal management of anterior shoulder instability remains a heated topic of debate, particularly after first-time shoulder dislocation. From expedited rehabilitation to arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet coracoid transfer, the shoulder community has staunchly defended its approach with carefully tailored data describing patient satisfaction, instability recurrence, revision surgery, and timeline to return to play or preinjury activity. However, not all patients require surgical stabilization, and a "wait-and-see" approach can often result in favorable outcome. The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score has been proposed as a unique tool to stratify risk for failure among athletes after an anterior shoulder instability event. While not a standalone tool for predicting further shoulder dislocation in a broader athletic population, the Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score reflects a movement toward personalized medicine, where clinical decision making is executed on the individual level based on unique risk factors and circumstances.

Open Stabilization Procedures of the Shoulder in the Athlete: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Shoulder instability is a relatively common injury especially in the young athletic population and its surgical management continues to remain a controversial topic in sports medicine orthopedics. Anterior instability is the most common type encountered and is estimated to have an incidence rate of 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general population; however, this figure is likely higher in the young athletic population. While in recent practice, arthroscopic surgery has become the new gold standard for management, reported failure rates as high as 26% and high recurrence rates in specific subpopulations such as young men in high collision sports have led to the consideration of alternative open procedures such as open Bankart repair, Latarjet, capsular shift, and glenoid bone grafting. These procedures may be preferred in specific patient subgroups such as young athletes involved in contact sports and those with Hill-Sachs defects and multidirectional instability, with postoperative recurrence rates of instability as low as 10%. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of different open surgical techniques in the management of shoulder instability and summarize patient outcomes including recurrence rates for shoulder instability, return to sport, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and complications either individually by procedure or in comparison with other techniques, with special focus on their impact in the athletic population.

Sex-specific differences in outcomes after anterior shoulder surgical stabilization: a meta-analysis and systematic review of literature

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Editorial Commentary: Should We Condemn the Shoulder Instability Severity Index Scoring System? Not at All!... Can We Improve Its Radiographic Component? Yes, We Can!

Is patient selection necessary in shoulder instability surgery? Absolutely. The risk-benefit discussion that the surgeon must have with the patient before proposing an arthroscopic Bankart repair remains crucial to provide informed consent. The most important preoperative risk factors are incorporated in the instability severity index (ISI) score to assist surgeons in the decision-making process. This 10-point score is based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and simple plain radiographs. Using this score at the first visit, the surgeon can explain to the patient and family why a Bankart repair may be contraindicated and why other surgical options may be more suitable. A recent study found that the ISI score has no limited predictive value when applied in a preselected population of military patients without severe bone loss or hyperlaxity. This is not surprising because the authors analyzed a preselected patient population with lower risk than the general population. The value of the ISI scoring system relies on the fact that this tool has been developed after evaluation of arthroscopic Bankart repair in an unselected patient population and that there is no need for sophisticated imaging studies to make the decision. This scoring system should not be condemned but complemented with preoperative advanced imaging studies (computed tomography [CT] scanning or magnetic resonance imaging) to assess the severity of the bone lesions more accurately. Today, the choice of the surgical procedure depends not only on the clinical risk factors included in the ISI score (age, type of sports, level of practice, hyperlaxity) but also on the presence, location and size of bony lesions, as identified and measured on advanced CT scanning images.

Limited Predictive Value of the Instability Severity Index Score: Evaluation of 217 Consecutive Cases of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE

To review the existing variables and their ability to predict recurrence of shoulder instability as it relates to the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS), as well as evaluate any other pertinent imaging and patient history variables that may impact risk of recurrent anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and who had arthroscopic instability repair were identified. Exclusion criteria were prior surgery on the shoulder, posterior or multidirectional instability, instability caused by seizure disorder, or a rotator cuff tear. All ISIS variables were recorded (age <20 years, sport type and level, hyperlaxity, Hill-Sachs on anteroposterior external rotation radiograph, loss of glenoid contour on anteroposterior radiograph), as well as additional variables: (1) number of instability events; (2) total time of instability; (3) glenoid bone loss (GBL) percent; and (4) Hill-Sachs measures (H/L/W/D/Volume). Postoperative outcomes were assessed based on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and recurrent anterior instability. Regression analysis was used to determine preoperative variables that predicted outcomes and failures.

RESULTS

There were 217 consecutive patients (209 male patients [96.5%], 8 female patients [3.5%]) who met the inclusion criteria and were all treated with a primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization during a 3.5-year period (2007-2011), with a mean follow-up time of 42 months (range, 26-58). The mean age at first instability event was 23.9 years (range, 16-48 years) and the mean cumulative ISIS score for the overall group was 3.6 (range, 1-6). Outcomes were improved from mean preoperative (WOSI = 1,050/2,100; ASES = 61.0; SANE = 52.5) to postoperative (WOSI = 305/2,100; ASES = 93.5; SANE = 95.5). A total of 11.5% (25/217) of patients had evidence of recurrent instability (subluxation or dislocation). Additionally, all 25 patients who failed postoperatively also had consistently inferior ASES, SANE, and WOSI outcome scores when compared with successfully treated patients. Factors associated with failure were GBL greater than 14.5% (P < .001), total time of instability symptoms greater than 3 months (P = .03), Hill-Sachs volume greater than 1.3 cm³ (P = .02), contact sports participation (P = .05), and age 20 years or younger (P < .01). There was no correlation in outcomes with Hill-Sachs on presence of glenoid contour loss on radiograph (P = .07), participation sports, or ISIS (mean = 3.4 success vs 3.9 failure, P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 42 months was an 11.5% failure rate after arthroscopic Bankart stabilization surgery. This study shows no correlation between treatment outcome and the ISIS measure, given a mean score of 3.4 for the overall cohort with little difference identified in those who failed. However, several important parameters previously unidentified were detected including, GBL greater than 14.5%, Hill-Sachs volume greater than 1.3 cm³, and duration of instability symptoms (>3 months). The ISIS may need to be redesigned to incorporate variables that more accurately portray the actual risk of failure after arthroscopic stabilization, including quantification of both glenoid and humeral head bone loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III (Retrospective Case Series).

A lower Instability Severity Index score threshold may better predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

Importance

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) score was developed to evaluate a patient’s risk of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. While patients with an ISI score of >6 were originally recommended to undergo an open procedure (ie, Latarjet) to minimise the risk of recurrence, recent literature has called into question the utility of the ISI score.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of the ISI score as a tool to predict postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart procedures.

Evidence review

Articles were included if study participants underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability and reported postoperative recurrence by ISI score at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Pearson’s χ2 test was used to compare recurrence rates among patients above and below an ISI score of 4. Sensitivity, specificity, mean ISI scores and predictive value of individual factors of the ISI score were qualitatively reviewed.

Findings

Four studies concluded the ISI score was effective in predicting postoperative recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair; however, these studies found threshold values lower than the previously proposed score of >6 may be more predictive of recurrent instability. A pooled analysis of these studies found patients with an ISI score <4 to experience significantly lower recurrence rates when compared with patients with a score ≥4 (6.3% vs 26.0%, p<0.0001). The mean ISI score among patients who experienced recurrent instability was also significantly higher than those who did not.

Conclusions and relevance

The ISI score as constructed by Balg and Boileau may have clinical utility to help predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, this review found the threshold values published in their seminal article to be insufficient predictors of recurrent instability. Instead, a lower score threshold may provide as a better predictor of failure. The paucity of level I and II investigations limits the strength of these conclusions, suggesting a need for further large, prospective studies evaluating the predictive ability of the ISI score.

Level of evidence

IV.

Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

PURPOSE

Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21-30 years.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Although Surgical Techniques Differ, Similar Outcomes Can Be Obtained When Operating After Single Versus Multiple Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

Purpose

To compare the differences in preoperative pathology, surgical technique, and overall outcomes between patients treated surgically after a single anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation and those undergoing surgery after multiple dislocations.

Methods

An epidemiologic database was used to identify all patients younger than 40 years undergoing surgery for anterior shoulder instability between January 1, 1994, and July 31, 2016, in a defined geographic area. Patient medical records were reviewed to obtain demographic information, patient history, physical examination findings, imaging findings, clinical progression, surgical details, and outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed between patients who underwent surgery after a single dislocation and those who underwent surgery after multiple preoperative dislocations.

Results

The study population consisted of 187 patients who had a single anterior shoulder dislocation (n = 55) or multiple anterior shoulder dislocations (n = 132) prior to surgery. The mean follow-up period was 103.3 months (range, 0.3-328.4 months). Demographic characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Although the presence of Hill-Sachs lesions on radiographs was more common in the multiple-dislocation group (42.1%) than in the single-dislocation group (18.8%, P = .005), there were no other significant differences in concomitant pathology between groups. Latarjet procedures were more commonly performed in the multiple-dislocation group (12.5% vs 2.1% in the single-dislocation group, P = .04). There were no other significant differences in surgical techniques and characteristics between groups. Rates of survival free from recurrent instability (P = .790), revision surgery (P = .726), and progression to symptomatic osteoarthritis (P = .588) were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions

Although patients with multiple dislocations prior to surgery were more likely to show radiographic evidence of Hill-Sachs lesions and undergo the Latarjet procedure than those who received surgery after a single dislocation, no significant differences in outcomes with respect to recurrent instability, revision surgery, or progression to symptomatic osteoarthritis were found between these 2 groups at long-term follow-up.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: State of the Art in 2020: Decision-making and Operative Technique

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is prevalent among young athletes, and recurrent dislocations can result in compromised upper extremity function, increasing glenohumeral bone loss, and ultimately, posttraumatic arthritis. Although management algorithms have evolved in response to contemporary data and technical innovation, the arthroscopic Bankart repair continues to be a mainstay for the primary surgical management of first-time or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with marginal attritional glenoid bone loss (ie, <10% to 15%) and/or "on track" Hill-Sachs defects. The advantages of arthroscopic stabilization include its minimally invasive technique, high cost effectiveness, and relatively low recurrence rates and propensity for perioperative complications. The current article reviews contemporary indications/contraindications, management of the first-time dislocator, critical glenoid bone loss, surgical technique, and reported clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Double-loaded suture anchors in the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair for anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with the use of double-loaded suture anchors.

Methods

This study evaluated a series of consecutive patients treated after the senior author changed from single- to double-loaded suture anchors for the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. We collected the following outcomes at final follow-up: visual analog scale pain score, Simple Shoulder Test score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and instability recurrence data.

Results

A total of 41 consecutive patients underwent arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors, of whom 30 (71%) were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. These patients included 4 contact or collision athletes (13%). The patients had an average of 12 ± 13 prior dislocations over an average period of 56 ± 57 months preoperatively. Mean glenoid bone loss measured 16% ± 10%, and 67% (18 of 27 patients) had glenoid bone loss ≥ 13.5%. Intraoperatively, 3.2 ± 0.4 anchors were used. No posterior repairs or remplissage procedures were performed. At an average of 6.7 ± 2.7 years' follow-up, the visual analog scale pain score was 0.8 ± 1.4; Simple Shoulder Test score, 11 ± 2; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 90 ± 14. Patients with bone loss < 13.5% had a 0% redislocation rate and 11% subluxation rate, whereas those with bone loss ≥ 13.5% had a 6% reoperation rate, 22% redislocation rate, and 22% subluxation rate.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic labral repair with double-loaded anchors provides satisfactory clinical results at early to mid-term outcome assessment when glenoid bone loss is <13.5%.

Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization in the young athlete: return to sport and revision stabilization rates

BACKGROUND

Shoulder instability in young athletes is a complex problem with higher recurrence, higher reoperation, and lower return to sport (RTS) rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization compared with adults.

METHODS

This is a prospective case series of young athletes with anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic stabilization surgery. Primary outcomes were RTS and revision surgery, minimum follow-up was 24 months. Exclusion criteria were more than 3 preoperative episodes of instability, significant bone loss, or primary posterior instability. Demographic data, recurrent instability, revision surgery, sports pre- and postsurgery, patient satisfaction, level of RTS, time to RTS, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven athletes met inclusion criteria, 19 females and 48 males, with a mean age of 17.5 years (range, 13-21 years). Fifty-nine (88%) athletes returned to sport at an average of 7.1 months (standard deviation, ±1.8); 50 (75%) returned to the same level or higher. Football and lacrosse were the most common sports. Four of 67 athletes (6%), all male, underwent revision stabilization at 11-36 months for recurrent instability. The overall mean SANE score was 88.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that when the high-risk athlete, 21 years old or younger, is appropriately selected for arthroscopic shoulder stabilization by excluding those with 3 or more preoperative shoulder instability episodes and those with off-track and engaging instability patterns, excellent outcomes can be achieved with low revision surgery rates, high RTS rates, and high patient satisfaction.

Predicting Failure After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Analysis of a Statistical Model Using Anatomic Risk Factors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish and analyze a simplified scoring system based on anatomic imaging measurements to predict recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral repair.

METHODS

All patients undergoing primary arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair of the shoulder were reviewed. Patients were contacted and charts were reviewed for endpoint of recurrent instability and return to prior level of activity. Predictive variables for recurrent instability studied included age, sex, amount of glenoid bone loss, intact anterior articular arc (IAAA), glenohumeral tracking (off-track), contact sports and overhead sports participation.

RESULTS

540 patients met inclusion criteria and follow-up data with magnetic resonance imaging data were available for 337 shoulders. Average follow-up was 6.2 years(range 3.4-9.3 years). Symptomatic recurrent instability occurred in 102 patients (30.3%) and 68% of contacted patients returned to pre-injury activities. In univariate analysis, age under 21 years, off-track lesions, IAAA <150°, and glenoid bone loss (GBL) of 10% or greater displayed an increased risk of recurrent instability. Multivariable analysis showed these factors remained significant: age <21 (odds ratio [ratio] 2.37), off-track glenoid (OR 2.86), IAAA <150 (OR 3.90), and GBL ≥10% (OR 7.47). A scoring system assigning 1 point each for age and off-track lesions, 2 points for IAAA <150, and 4 points for GBL >10% yielded 79% sensitivity, 75% specificity, 58% positive predictive value, and 89% negative predictive value using a probability value of 20 percent for recurrent instability.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, recurrent shoulder instability following primary arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair was 30% in this series. Younger age, glenoid bone loss of 10% or more, IAAA <150° and off-track glenoid lesion conferred the greatest risk for postoperative instability. We propose a scoring system assigning 1 point for age, 1 point for off-track lesions, 2 points for IAAA <150, and 4 points for GBL >10%. This schema demonstrated moderate accuracy for predicting recurrent instability when using a cutoff threshold score above 2 points for failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Editorial Commentary: More Is Better? The 6-O'clock Anchor in Instability Surgery

Placing an anchor at the 6-o'clock position on the glenoid when performing an arthroscopic Bankart repair has been suggested by multiple authors as a potential key step in improving the outcomes of arthroscopic repair. Placement of a 6-o'clock anchor increases the peak resistance force to displacement over a traditional 3-anchor repair. Determining what technique issues are relevant remains problematic, and the ultimate preferred technique remains elusive.

Open Shoulder Stabilization for Instability: Anterior Labral Repair With Capsular Shift

Although anterior shoulder instability is most commonly treated with arthroscopic fixation, open labral repair with capsular shift may be best for select patients and in cases of revision stabilization without significant bone loss. The technique described in this article uses the deltopectoral interval; it involves careful dissection of the subscapularis from the anterior capsule, repair of the Bankart lesion, and a lateral and superior capsular shift using all-suture anchors in the humeral head. Advantages of this technique include meticulous control of anchor placement and the ability to provide additional stability via a lateral and superiorly directed capsular shift. This operation can be performed in a reliable, efficient, and reproducible manner.