Revision anterior glenohumeral instability: is arthroscopic treatment an option?

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.

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.

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.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part III-Revision Surgery, Rehabilitation and Return to Play, and Clinical Follow-Up-An International Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on revision surgery, rehabilitation and return to play, and clinical follow-up for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.

RESULTS

The primary relative indications for revision surgery include symptomatic apprehension or recurrent instability, additional intra-articular pathologies, and symptomatic hardware failure. In revision cases, the differentiating factors that dictate treatment are the degree of glenohumeral bone loss and rotator cuff function/integrity. The minimum amount of time before allowing athletes to return to play is unknown, but other factors should be considered, including restoration of strength, range of motion and proprioception, and resolved pain and apprehension, as these are prognostic factors of reinjury. Additionally, psychological factors should be considered in the rehabilitation process. Patients should be clinically followed up for a minimum of 12 months or until a return to full, premorbid function/activities. Finally, the following factors should be included in anterior shoulder instability-specific, patient-reported outcome measures: function/limitations impact on activities of daily living, return to sport/activity, instability symptoms, confidence in shoulder, and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 92% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were indications and factors affecting decisions for revision surgery, as well as how prior surgeries impact procedure choice. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the role of psychological factors in the return to play, considerations for allowing return to play, as well as prognostic factors. Finally, there was a lack of unanimous consensus on recommended timing and methods for clinical follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

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.

Is Revision Bankart Repair with Remplissage a Viable Option for Failed Bankart Repair in Non-contact Sports Person Aiming to Return to Sports?

PURPOSE

Failure of a well-executed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes is difficult to predict and its management is a lesser investigated area with uncertain outcome in terms of return to sports (RTS). This study analyses effectiveness of revision Bankart repair with remplissage for failed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes, focusing on time and level of RTS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive non-contact athletes with evidence of instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair having glenoid loss < 25% and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion were included in the study according to algorithm mentioned. All cases underwent revision arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and followed-up for 24 months. Rowe, UCLA, WOSI and Quick-DASH scores were recorded preoperative and at 24 months. RTS was allowed after unilateral seated shot-put test.

RESULTS

Out of 55 cases, 6 were excluded because of poor tissue quality, 7 were lost to follow-up. Forty-two cases with a mean age of 28.2 ± 5.2 years were included. Mean duration between primary surgery and failure was 7.3 ± 1.4 months with a mean 1.9 redislocations. The mean Rowe, WOSI, UCLA, Quick-DASH scores improved from 37 to 89, 39.3 to 83.7%, 18.4 to 30.5, 45.3 to 18.7 at 24 months. Thirty-five cases could RTS in a mean time 15.4 ± 1.4 months. Out of seven cases who could not RTS, four had instability, one had pain and two voluntarily quit sports.

CONCLUSION

Revision Bankart repair with remplissage is a feasible option for failed primary Bankart repair in non-contact athletes who have glenoid bone loss < 25% with off-track Hill-Sachs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

High Variability of the Definition of Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability: An Analysis of the Current Literature by a Systematic Review

Purpose

To determine the definitions for recurrence used in the literature, assess the consensus in using these definitions, and determine the impact of these definitions on recurrence rates.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE including studies from 2000 to 2020 reporting on recurrence rates after anterior arthroscopic shoulder instability surgery. Dislocation, apprehension, subluxation and recurrence rates were compared.

Results

Ninety-one studies were included. In 68% of the eligible studies, recurrence rates are not well defined. Thirty (33%) studies did not report on dislocations, 45 (49%) did not report on subluxations, and 58 (64%) did not report on apprehension. Seventeen different definitions for recurrence of instability, 4 definitions of dislocations, and 8 definitions of subluxation were used.

Conclusion

Recurrence rates are poorly specified and likely underreported in the literature, hampering comparison with results of other studies. This highlights the need for a consensus on definition of recurrence across shoulder instability studies. We recommend not using the definition recurrence of instability anymore. We endorse defining dislocations as a radiographically confirmed dislocation or a dislocation that is manually reduced, subluxations as the feeling of a dislocation that can be (spontaneously) reduced without the need for a radiographically confirmed dislocation, and a positive apprehension sign as fear of imminent dislocation when placing the arm in abduction and external rotation during physical examination. Reporting on the events resulting in a dislocation or subluxation aids in making an estimation of the severity of instability.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review.