Traumatic Instability: Treatment Options and Considerations for Recurrent Posttraumatic Instability

Glenohumeral Joint Instability: A Review of Anatomy, Clinical Presentation, and Imaging

The glenohumeral joint is intrinsically predisposed to instability because of the bony anatomy but maintained in alignment by many important structures, including the glenoid labrum, glenohumeral ligaments (GHLs), and muscles and tendons. Trauma and overuse can damage these stabilizers, which may then lead to subluxation or dislocation and eventually recurrent instability. This is most common in the anterior direction, which has several recognizable patterns of injury on advanced imaging, including humeral Hill Sachs deformities, bony Bankart lesion of the anteroinferior glenoid, soft tissue Bankart lesions, Bankart variant lesions (Perthes and ALPSA lesions), and HAGL/GAGL lesions. Similar reverse lesions are seen, as well as unique posterior lesions, such as Bennett and Kim's lesions. When symptoms of apprehension and instability in more than one direction are seen, one should consider multidirectional instability, which often presents with a patulous joint capsule. Finally, owing to significant impacts of daily activities and quality of life, surgical correction of labral tears, bony Bankart defects, Hill Sachs defects, and capsular laxity, may be considered.

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.

Similar Results in Return to Sports, Recurrences, and Healing Rates Between the Classic and Congruent-Arc Latarjet for Athletes With Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability and a Failed Stabilization

PURPOSE

To compare the return-to-sport rate, functional outcomes, and complications of the "classic Latarjet" surgery with those of the "congruent arc Latarjet" surgery in athletes with recurrent glenohumeral instability and failed previous stabilization procedures.

METHODS

All the included patients were operated between May 2009 and April 2017. The inclusion criteria were athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability, a glenoid bone defect greater than 20%, at least 1 previous failed stabilization surgery operated with the classic or the congruent-arc Latarjet procedures, and a minimum 2 years of follow-up. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, a visual analog scale for pain, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System score were used to assess functional outcomes. Complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 135 athletes were included in the study (55 patients were operated with the classic technique and 80 with the congruent arc technique). The mean follow-up was 40.3 months (range, 24-88 months) and the mean age was 26.5 years (range, 18-45 years). Overall, 87% were able to return to sports and 92% returned at the same level. No significant difference regarding return to sports was found between the groups. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe, visual analog scale, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .001). No significant difference in shoulder ROM and functional scores was found between patients operated with the classic and congruent arc procedures. There were 6 recurrences (4%). There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between groups. The bone block healed in 92% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and a failed previous operative repair, the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes and most athletes returned to sport at their preinjury level with a very low rate of recurrences, regardless of whether the Latarjet was performed with the classic or with the congruent arc technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

Biomechanical Comparison of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Versus Conjoint Tendon Transfer in a Bone Loss Shoulder Instability Model

Background:

Augmentation of Bankart repair with long head of the biceps tendon transfer has been previously described, although there is a paucity of literature describing its biomechanical effects.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of augmenting Bankart repair with either the conjoint tendon or the long head of the biceps tendon, both with and without subcritical (13%) glenoid bone loss. We hypothesized that, in a cadaveric model, augmenting Bankart repair with the long head of the biceps tendon would restore a greater degree of stability compared with augmenting Bankart repair with the conjoint tendon.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 12 cadaveric shoulders were tested on a 6-degrees-of-freedom robotic musculoskeletal simulator to measure the peak resistance force due to an anterior displacement of 1 cm. The rotator cuff muscles were loaded during testing to simulate physiological conditions. The following test conditions were used for each specimen: (1) intact shoulder, (2) Bankart lesion with 13% anterior bone loss, (3) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair (anchors placed at the 3-, 4-, and 5-o’clock positions), (4) 13% bone loss with both Bankart repair and transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon, and (5) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair and transfer of the conjoint tendon.

Results:

Labral repair with the addition of long head of the biceps tendon transfer had the greatest peak resistance force to anterior displacement among all groups (54.1 ± 5.5 N) and was significantly stronger than both standard Bankart repair by 16.3% (46.5 ± 7.6 N; P = .039) and the conjoint transfer procedure by 16.6% (46.4 ± 7.7 N; P = .008).

Conclusion:

Given the susceptibility of recurrent instability in shoulders with subcritical bone loss after isolated labral repair, it is important to consider augmenting Bankart repair in high-risk patients to avoid potential recurrence and the need for reoperations. Transferring the long head of the biceps tendon to the anterior glenoid represents one possible augmentation.

Clinical Relevance:

We present biomechanical data for a relatively novel technique for augmenting capsulolabral repair strength in an anterior instability model with subcritical bone loss. These data represent biomechanical justification for the utilization of this relatively novel technique.