Bankart versus Latarjet operation as a revision procedure after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

Long-term results of arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for failed anterior shoulder instability repair using suture anchors at a minimum of 10 years follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder instability repair has been proposed, and early clinical results have been promising. However, long-term results after this procedure and the probable risk factors for failure have not been sufficiently discussed in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients who were diagnosed with recurrent anteroinferior shoulder instability after failed Bankart repair, treated with ACRR between September 1998 and November 2003 and able to be contacted were included. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study due to the use of SureTak anchors for fixation, and 5 other patients refused to participate in the study due to lack of interest (3 patients) or lack of time (2 patients). The remaining shoulders were clinically examined at a minimum of ten years after surgery via the ASES, Constant, AAOS, Rowe, Dawson and VAS scores for pain and stability. Degenerative arthropathy was assessed with the modified Samilson-Prieto score.

RESULTS

All 31 remaining shoulders were evaluated at a mean time of 11.86 years (142.4 months) after surgery. Six patients (19.35%) reported redisolcation after the revision procedure, 4 of whom were affected by a new significant shoulder trauma. The ROWE and Constant scores improved significantly. Moderate to severe dislocation arthropathy was observed in 19.4% of patients. Five patients (16.2%) were not satisfied with the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up after ACRR shows predictable results, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, good to excellent patient-reported outcome scores and minimal radiological degenerative changes. However, with an average recurrence rate of 19.3% after 11.86 years, the redislocation rate appears high. With careful patient selection, recurrence rates can be significantly reduced.

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.

Significant Increase in Early Reoperation After Latarjet-Bristow Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the 30-day outcomes, including length of stay, short-term complications, hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, and death after arthroscopic Bankart (AB) and Latarjet.

METHODS

Patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who had undergone either AB or Latarjet-Bristow (LB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability from 2012 to 2018 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to address any potential demographic differences. The 30-day incidence of postoperative complications were compared, and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors associated with the incidence of post-operative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 7,519 patients were identified, with 6,990 (93.0%) undergoing AB and 529 (7.0%) LB. After propensity score matching, the baseline demographics were not significantly different (P > .05). There was no significant difference in rate of total adverse events between the AB and LB cohorts (P = .06). There was a significant difference in the rate of return to the operating room between LB (1.9%) when compared to AB (0%) (P < .001). Of reoperations, 40% were due to need for revision stabilization (0.8% of all LB cases) and 40% were for irrigation and debridement. There was also a significant difference in operative time (AB = 87 minutes, LB = 131 minutes; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall 30-day complication rates were low for both groups, with similar rates among AB and LB patients. However, there was a statistically significant increased rate of short-term reoperation or revision stabilization in the LB cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

A comprehensive comparison and evaluation of surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder instability is a common clinical problem; however, conflicting evidence exists regarding optimal treatment algorithms. We perform a comparative analysis of stabilization techniques used for recurrent anterior shoulder instability to identify the one associated with the lowest rate of recurrent instability. We additionally explore how glenoid bone loss and osseus lesions affect recurrence rates.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies comparing surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability. Two team members independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. Each included study underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias summary tool. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of recurrent instability, which underwent a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additional analyses were performed relating to the degree of glenoid bone loss and the presence of osseous lesions.

RESULTS

Of 2699 studies screened, 52 studies with 4209 patients were included. Patients who underwent open Latarjet demonstrated the overall lowest rate of recurrent instability [log odds ratio (LOR) 1.93], whereas patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair demonstrated the highest (LOR 2.87). When glenoid bone loss was 10% to 20%, open Latarjet had significantly lower recurrent instability (P = .0016) compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. When glenoid bone loss increased from 0%-10% to 10%-20%, arthroscopic Bankart repair had a significantly increased rate of recurrence (P = .021). In the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, both open Latarjet (P = .01) and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (P = .029) had significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. Finally, regardless of procedure, the presence of a Hill-Sachs or bony Bankart lesion was associated with an increased risk of recurrent instability (r = 0.44, P = .0003, and r = 0.40, P = .006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet has the overall lowest recurrent instability and significantly lower compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the setting of increasing glenoid bone loss. Bone loss between 0% and 10% results in similar outcomes across all procedures.

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.

Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair and Capsulorrhaphy: A Systematic Review

Background

Failure rates up to 14% have been reported after arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair. It is unknown if revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral stabilization has inferior restoration of stability and return to sport when compared with primary repair. Optimal management of failed posterior capsulolabral stabilization is unknown.

Purpose

To report outcomes of revision posterior capsulolabral repair and factors that contribute to failure and to determine optimal management of failed posterior stabilization procedures.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A computerized search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists were performed in January 2022. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair were eligible. Patient characteristics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Owing to heterogeneity of reported outcomes, data were summarized and presented without pooled statistics.

Results

Only 3 of the 990 identified studies met inclusion criteria. The included studies encompassed 26 revision arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repairs, with follow-up ranging from 2.3 to 5.3 years. The failed index procedure was arthroscopic capsulolabral repair with suture anchors (n = 22) or posterior thermal capsulorrhaphy (n = 4). The primary indications for revision were recurrent instability and pain. Six patients experienced recurrent instability after revision. Patient satisfaction ranged from 15% to 25%.

Conclusion

This systematic review of 3 studies demonstrated that the incidence of persistent pain and recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization is common, and despite slight improvement in patient-reported outcomes, many patients are dissatisfied with their clinical outcomes. Revision arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization appears to have a significant failure rate, and there is need for additional prospective studies to help determine the best intervention for these patients.

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical results of revision Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in databases, such as Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies tool. Studies for failed Bankart repair with revision Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure were included. The pain VAS, ROWE score, rate of return to sports and preinjury level of sports, recurrent instability, range of motion, and complications were compared. Additionally, the pain VAS, ROWE score, forward flexion, and external rotation at side were subjected to a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review. The functional outcomes in terms of the ROWE score, recurrent instability, return to sports, and the preinjury level of sports was better in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (ROWE score, 91 vs. 86.7; recurrent instability rate, 3.5% vs. 14.4%; return to sports rate, 100% vs. 87.9%; return to preinjury level of sports rate, 89.9% vs. 74.9%; all P < 0.001). However, the results of postoperative pain and the postoperative limitation of external rotation at side were worse in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (pain VAS, 1.4 vs. 0.8; postoperative external rotation at side, 38° vs. 60°; all P < 0.001). In addition, the majority of the complications occurred in the Latarjet procedure group. In the meta-analysis, the postoperative ROWE score was significantly higher in the Latarjet procedure group than that in the revision Bankart group (revision Bankart repair: 95% CI 88.9-80.9, I² = 65.70; Latarjet procedure: 95% CI 95.8-88.1, I² = 93.37; P = 0.014). However, the pain VAS, forward flexion, and external rotation at side did not reach the significant level in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared with revision Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair showed better ROWE scores, stability, and return to sports or preinjury level of sports; however, the postoperative pain and the limitation of external rotation at side were worse with more complications.

IRB NO

KUMC 2022-01-024.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To provide an update of recent literature with a specialized focus on clinical outcomes following arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (ARBR) by performing a systematic review of all available literature published between 2013 and 2020.

METHODS

A literature search reporting clinical outcomes after ARBR was performed. Criteria for inclusion consisted of original studies; Level of Evidence of I-IV; studies focusing on clinical outcomes after ARBR published between January 1, 2013, and January 4, 2021; studies reporting recurrent dislocation or instability rate after ARBR; reoperation/revision following ARBR, return to sport rates following ARBR; and patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest were failure defined as recurrent instability or dislocation, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcomes at follow-up.

RESULTS

A large proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair were male, ranging between 67.7% and 93.8%. Failure rate and return to sports rate ranged between 6.1% and 46.8% and 25.9% and 88.3%, respectively, when patients with significant or greater than 20% glenoid bone loss was excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, which included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale, saw significant improvement over mean follow-up of ranging 21.64 to 60 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the failure rate and RTS rates after ARBR had a wide range, given the heterogeneity of the studies included, which varied in patient selection criteria pertaining to patients with greater than 20% glenoid bone. Although there have been advancements in arthroscopic techniques and a trend favoring arthroscopic stabilization procedures, there is a lack of consensus in recent literature for careful patient selection criteria that would minimize failure rates and maximize RTS rates after ARBR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, a systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures

Introduction

There is a trend towards arthroscopically treating shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency. Despite this, there remains the option for treatment through an open technique. Multiple bone augmentation options are available for recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Objective

To provide a systematic review of recent studies for recurrent anterior shoulder instability necessitating glenoid bone augmentation specifically through open procedures using coracoid bone or free bone blocks [iliac crest bone autograft/allograft or distal tibia allograft (DTA)].

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting open glenoid bone augmentation procedures with iliac crest, tibia, or coracoid bones within 10 years. Extracted data included study/patient characteristics, techniques, prior surgeries, prior dislocations, radiographic findings, range of motion (ROM), recurrent instability, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.

Results

92 met inclusion criteria (5693 total patients). Six were studies of iliac crest bone, four of DTA, and 84 using the coracoid bone. 29 studies measured postoperative arthritis showing no development or mild arthritis. 26 studies reported postoperative graft position. 62 studies reported ROM noting decline in internal/external rotation. 87 studies measured postoperative instability with low rates. Rowe Scores with noted improvement across 31/59 (52.5%) studies were seen. Common post operative complications included infection, hematoma, graft fracture, nerve injury, pain, and screw-related irritation.

Conclusion

Despite a trend towards arthroscopic management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency, open procedures continue to provide satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, studies have demonstrated safe and efficacious use of free bone block graft options in the primary and revision setting.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.

No Difference in Outcomes After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage or Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABRR) compared with the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with a labral tear and a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent either ABRR or the AL procedure for a diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability with a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Recurrent instability, the visual analog scale score, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and return to work or sport were evaluated.

Results

Our study included 41 patients treated with ABRR and 26 treated with the AL procedure. At final follow-up, there was no difference between patients who underwent ABRR and those who underwent the AL procedure in the reported Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (21.8% vs 28.2%, P = .33) or any of its components, the visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 1.4, P = .32), the Subjective Shoulder Value (78.4 vs 74.5, P = .6062), the rate of satisfaction (81.6% vs 85.6%, P = .54), or whether patients would undergo surgery again (81.6% vs 96.1%, P = .16). Overall, 5 patients in the ABRR group and 2 patients in the AL group had recurrent instability events (12.2% vs 7.8%, P = .70), with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent dislocation (12.2% vs 3.8%, P = .39).

Conclusions

In patients with anterior shoulder instability and a concomitant Hill-Sachs lesion, both ABRR and the AL procedure were shown to be reliable treatments, with a low rate of recurrent instability and excellent patient-reported outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, our study could not determine whether there was critical glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing ABRR, and surgeons should still exercise caution in performing ABRR in patients with high-grade glenoid bone loss or in those with failed prior stabilizations.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation.

PURPOSE

We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).

CONCLUSION

With significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.

Clinical outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review of studies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to review the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies in which arthroscopic Bankart repair was performed as a revision procedure were included. The clinical outcomes extracted and analyzed were functional outcomes, return to play, and recurrent instability.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 433 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male patients (63.7%); the average age was 26.1 years (range, 14-58 years), and the mean follow-up period was 37.6 months (range, 10-144 months). The mean Rowe score was 84.2, and 79.7% of patients had good to excellent outcomes. The rate of return to play was 78.5%, with 47.5% of patients returning to their preinjury level of play across 10 studies. The rate of recurrent instability was reported in 12 studies, with 328 shoulders demonstrating 86 instability events (26.2%). The rate of recurrent instability due to dislocation was reported in 7 studies (n = 176), with 19 events (10.8%), whereas the rate of subluxation was reported in 4 studies (n = 76), with 6 events (7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability was shown to result in a high rate of recurrent shoulder instability. There was a relatively poor rate of return to sport among athletes, and only about half of the patients were able to return at or above their preoperative level of ability.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

Background:

The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results.

Purpose:

To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery.

Results:

The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003).

Conclusion:

In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

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.