Trends in Surgical Management of Shoulder Instability

Osteochondral allografts for the treatment of shoulder instability

Aims

To systematically review the predominant complication rates and changes to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for shoulder instability.

Methods

This systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, involved a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Key search terms included "allograft", "shoulder", "humerus", and "glenoid". The review encompassed 37 studies with 456 patients, focusing on primary outcomes like failure rates and secondary outcomes such as PROMs and functional test results.

Results

A meta-analysis of primary outcomes across 17 studies revealed a dislocation rate of 5.1% and an increase in reoperation rates from 9.3% to 13.7% post-publication bias adjustment. There was also a noted rise in conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty and incidence of osteoarthritis/osteonecrosis over longer follow-up periods. Patient-reported outcomes and functional tests generally showed improvement, albeit with notable variability across studies. A concerning observation was the consistent presence of allograft resorption, with rates ranging from 33% to 80%. Comparative studies highlighted similar efficacy between distal tibial allografts and Latarjet procedures in most respects, with some differences in specific tests.

Conclusion

OCA transplantation presents a promising treatment option for shoulder instability, effectively addressing both glenoid and humeral head defects with favourable patient-reported outcomes. These findings advocate for the inclusion of OCA transplantation in treatment protocols for shoulder instability, while also emphasizing the need for further high-quality, long-term research to better understand the procedure's efficacy profile.

Increasing Awareness of Complications of Nerve Injury Following Shoulder Surgery: Preventing Delays in Referral and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Nerve injuries remain a challenging complication after shoulder surgery. While most resolve spontaneously, some require surgical intervention. This study describes the characteristics of patients sustaining nerve injuries following shoulder surgery, evaluates referral patterns to nerve surgeons, and characterizes nerve surgeries performed and their outcomes. Increased awareness of these injuries allows patients and providers to be better informed regarding the appropriate management when these complications occur.

METHODS

A retrospective review of referrals with nerve injuries following shoulder surgery between 2007 and 2015 was performed. The final analysis included 65 patients. Data reviewed included demographics, procedure and anesthesia type, and diagnosis of nerve injury. Time to referral to nerve surgeon and proportional changes in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were determined. Outcomes were categorized as failed, partially successful, and successful based on final follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients were referred following arthroscopic shoulder surgeries (35.4%), shoulder arthroplasties (24.6%), open shoulder procedures (21.5%), and combined open and arthroscopic procedures (18.5%). The mean time to referral was 7.6 months. Nerve injuries involved brachial plexus (33) and individual and multiple peripheral nerve branches (23 and 7, respectively). Twenty-five (38%) nerve injuries demonstrated spontaneous recovery. Thirty-five patients underwent surgical intervention, of which 27 were successful, 3 were partially successful, and 3 failed.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest series of patients with iatrogenic nerve injury following shoulder surgeries to date. Our data demonstrate a lack of timely referral to nerve surgeons, especially after arthroscopy. There continues to be a variable injury pattern even among similar surgeries. Despite this, timely surgical intervention, when indicated, can lead to favorable outcomes.

Distal Tibial Allograft for the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability With Glenoid Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of a distal tibial allograft (DTA) for reconstruction of a glenoid defect in anterior shoulder instability has grown significantly over the past decade. However, few large-scale clinical studies have investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the DTA procedure.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with data on outcomes and complications in patients who underwent the DTA procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of major bibliographic databases was conducted for articles pertaining to the use of a DTA for the management of anterior shoulder instability with associated glenoid bone loss. Postoperative complications and outcomes were extracted and compiled in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 8 included studies with 329 total participants, the mean patient age was 28.1 ± 10.8 years, 192 (83.8%) patients were male, and the mean follow-up was 38.4 ± 20.5 months. The overall complication rate was 7.1%, with hardware complications (3.8%) being the most common. Partial graft resorption was observed in 36.5% of the participants. Recurrent subluxation was reported in 1.2% of the participants, and recurrent dislocation prompting a reoperation was noted in 0.3% of the participants. There were significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (40.9-point increase; P < .01), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (47.2-point increase; P < .01), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (49.4-point decrease; P < .01), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (20.0-point decrease; P = .03), and visual analog scale (2.1-point decrease; P = .05). Additionally, postoperative shoulder range of motion significantly increased from baseline values.

CONCLUSION

The DTA procedure was associated with a low complication rate, good clinical outcomes, and improved range of motion among patients with anterior shoulder instability and associated glenoid defects.

Unplanned return to the operating room after arthroscopic procedures: a need to consider 12 months after the initial surgery

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to report the proportion and cause of unplanned revision surgery rates within 1 year following arthroscopic procedures. Our hypothesis was that there is a significant rate of unplanned returns (URs) occurring between 3 and 12 months after the initial procedure and that causes of revision are different when considering the delay after the index surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 4142 consecutive patients who underwent an arthroscopic procedure in a single department of orthopedics and traumatology, patients undergoing revision surgery for any reasons directly related to the primary procedure were included. Cause for revision, surgical site, delay from index procedure, and number of revisions were screened.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients underwent 97 revision surgeries (2.3%) for reasons directly related to the primary procedure. Most revision surgeries were performed after month 3 following index surgery (59 patients, 60.8%). Mean time to revision surgery was 5.3 ± 4.3 months (range 0-365 days). Usual early-onset (< 3 months) reasons for unplanned revision were surgical site infection (17 patients, 0.41%), wound-healing defect (12 patients, 0.29%), and hemorrhagic complication (7 patients, 0.17%). Reasons for delayed unplanned revision (> 3 months) were index procedure failure (21 patients, 0.51%), stiffness (18 patients, 0.43%), and removal of hardware (16 patients, 0.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons for return to the operating room (OR) are different depending on the timepoint from index procedure. Patients should receive relevant information accordingly when scheduling any arthroscopic procedure, including up to 1-year potential complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic study, Case series, Level IV.

The Glenoid Track Paradigm Does Not Reliably Affect Military Surgeons’ Approach to Managing Shoulder Instability

Purpose

To report the frequencies of surgical stabilization procedures performed by military shoulder surgeons and to use decision tree analysis to describe how bipolar bone loss affects surgeons' decision to perform arthroscopic versus open stabilization procedures.

Methods

The Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network (MOTION) database was queried for anterior shoulder stabilization procedures from 2016 to 2021. A nonparametric decision tree analysis was used to generate a framework for classifying surgeon decision making based on specified injury characteristics (labral tear location, glenoid bone loss [GBL], Hill-Sachs lesion [HSL] size, and on-track vs off-track HSL).

Results

A total of 525 procedures were included in the final analysis, with a mean patient age of 25.9 ± 7.2 years and a mean GBL percentage of 3.6% ± 6.8%. HSLs were described based on size as absent (n = 354), mild (n = 129), moderate (n = 40), and severe (n = 2) and as on-track versus off-track in 223 cases, with 17% (n = 38) characterized as off-track. Arthroscopic labral repair (n = 428, 82%) was the most common procedure, whereas open repair (n = 10, 1.9%) and glenoid augmentation (n = 44, 8.4%) were performed infrequently. Decision tree analysis identified a GBL threshold of 17% or greater that resulted in an 89% probability of glenoid augmentation. Shoulders with GBL less than 17% combined with a mild or absent HSL had a 95% probability of an isolated arthroscopic labral repair, whereas a moderate or severe HSL resulted in a 79% probability of arthroscopic repair with remplissage. The presence of an off-track HSL did not contribute to the decision-making process as defined by the algorithm and data available.

Conclusions

Among military shoulder surgeons, GBL of 17% or greater is predictive of a glenoid augmentation procedure whereas HSL size is predictive of remplissage for GBL less than 17%. However, the on-track/off-track paradigm does not appear to affect military surgeons' decision making.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

On the Rise: The Increasing Frequency of Pediatric Shoulder Stabilization Surgery in Children and Adolescents

The management of shoulder instability in children and adolescents continues to evolve. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology of shoulder stabilization procedures in a large, nationally representative pediatric population. The Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database was queried for patients 18 years and younger undergoing surgical shoulder stabilization between 2008 and 2017. Patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery were compared with patients undergoing complex (open or bony augment stabilization) procedures. Annual trends were calculated using linear regression. A total of 3925 procedures were performed, of which 92.9% were arthroscopic Bankart repairs. There was a significant increase in overall pediatric shoulder stabilizations and arthroscopic repairs between 2008 and 2017. Complex procedures were performed most often in the Northeast, but the annual frequency did not increase nationally. [Orthopedics. 202X;XX(X):xx-xx.].

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage as an Alternative to Latarjet for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability With More Than 15% Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of anterior shoulder instability continues to evolve. The clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) in patients with increasing glenoid bone loss (GBL) has not been thoroughly compared with Latarjet.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of REMP versus open Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL. We hypothesized that there would be no difference.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary REMP or Latarjet by 4 shoulder specialists between August 2013 and December 2019 for >15% GBL. Procedure performance was based on shared decision making between the surgeon and patient. Baseline and 2-year postoperative range of motion (ROM) and the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Return to sport, satisfaction, complications, recurrence, and revisions were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were available for study, including 22 who underwent REMP and 25 who underwent Latarjet. Baseline demographic characteristics, ROM, and PROs were similar between the groups. Mean preoperative GBL (REMP 25.8% ± 7.8% vs Latarjet 25.1% ± 9.0%; P = .800) and off-track lesions (REMP 59.1% vs Latarjet 44.0%; P = .302) were similar. Postoperative change in external rotation favored Latarjet (10° ± 22° vs -4° ± 13°; P = .017). Postoperative PROs, return to the sports (86.4% vs 87.5%; P = .99), and satisfaction (95.5% vs 95.8%; P = .99) were similar between groups. There were no recurrent dislocations in either group. One infected hematoma was encountered in the Latarjet cohort.

CONCLUSION

At short-term follow-up, the hypothesis was upheld. REMP and Latarjet provided similar outcomes for patients with >15% GBL, although REMP patients experienced slightly decreased external rotation. Although larger series and longer-term follow-ups are required, remplissage may be considered in patients with >15% glenoid bone loss.

Risk for recurrent instability and reoperation following arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization in a large cross-sectional population

Background

Recurrent shoulder instability is an orthopedic problem with potentially long-term functional ramifications. Although arthroscopic stabilization has become increasingly utilized over open stabilization, optimal surgical intervention to minimize recurrent instability remains controversial.

Methods

The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for all cases of open and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization from 2010 to 2019. Utilization trends were aggregated after identifying cohorts of 107,210 and 13,217 patients who respectively underwent arthroscopic or open stabilization using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Subsets from those cohorts with laterality-specific International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for shoulder instability were used to evaluate 2-year rates of recurrent instability (presence of shoulder dislocation or revision open or arthroscopic stabilization). Linear regression and chi-squared analysis were used to analyze utilization trends and to compare recurrent instability.

Results

Arthroscopic stabilization comprised 90% of all stabilization procedures with annual utilization continuing to increase into 2019. Latarjet utilization increased from 15% to 42% of all open stabilization procedures while open Bankart repair utilization decreased from 56% to 35%. The rate of recurrent instability was 10.2% after arthroscopic stabilization and 12.3% after open stabilization (P = .01). Rates of redislocation (4.0% vs. 2.6%, P < .01), conversion to shoulder arthroplasty (1.2% vs. 0.4%, P < .01), and revision open stabilization (6.8% vs. 2.3%, P < .01) after index open stabilization were significantly higher than after index arthroscopic stabilization. There was no difference in revision stabilization or dislocation rates between open procedures.

Conclusion

Despite increasing utilization of coracoid transfer, arthroscopic stabilization is still the dominant modality used for surgical treatment of shoulder instability and in our analysis, showed lower 2-year rates of dislocation, revision open stabilization, and conversion to shoulder arthroplasty.

Can We Identify Why Athletes Fail to Return to Sports After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No previous systematic reviews have reported on athletes who fail to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE

To review the literature on athletes who fail to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair to determine the rate of athletes who did not return to sports and to identify the specific reasons for failure to return to sports by nonreturning athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were queried for articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were considered eligible only if reporting the rate of failure for return to sports and providing the specific reasons why athletes were unable to return to sports. All records were screened by title, abstract, and full text by 2 authors independently, with any discrepancies resolved by a third senior author. For articles selected for inclusion, data were collected on the number of athletes, average age, average follow-up time, type of sport played, rate of failure to return to sports, and specific reasons for failure to return. A random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were selected for inclusion reporting on a total of 813 athletes. The calculated weighted rate of failure to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair was 15.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-21.1%). A significantly higher proportion of athletes cited shoulder-dependent versus shoulder-independent reasons for failure to return to sports (81.7% vs 18.3%; P < .0001). The most cited reasons for failure to return included recurrent or persistent instability (33.3%), fear of reinjury (17.7%), apprehension (9.9%), changes in priorities or personal interest (8.5%), lack of time (7.1%), and discomfort or pain with sports (6.4%).

CONCLUSION

Our study estimated the rate of failure to return to sports after arthroscopic Bankart repair to be 15.6%, with most athletes citing shoulder-related reasons as the primary factor precluding return. Identifying the potential reasons preventing successful return to sports can guide surgeons in counseling athletes regarding postoperative expectations and addressing hesitations for returning to sports.

Trends in utilization and patient demographics for shoulder instability procedures from 2010 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Improved techniques and increased surgeon experience have optimized surgical care in patients with recurrent shoulder instability. Several techniques are used for surgical repair of shoulder instability, yet there are limited data on how utilization has changed over the past decade. The aim of this study was to assess trends in the utilization rate and patient demographic characteristics (age and sex) from 2010 to 2019 for 4 shoulder instability procedures: coracoid transfer/Latarjet procedure (LP), anterior bone block (ABB), open Bankart repair (OBR), and arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

METHODS

We identified >87,000 patients using an all-payer claims database. The utilization rate was defined as the number of cases of a procedure divided by the total number of surgical cases for shoulder instability for any given year. Age was divided into 3 groups: <25 years, 25-35 years, and >35 years. Trends were reported in terms of the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR).

RESULTS

Although ABR was the most common shoulder instability procedure overall (91% utilization rate), the LP had the greatest increase in utilization from 2010 to 2019 (2.0% to 4.5%; CAGR, +9.8%). In comparison, the utilization of ABB procedures increased by 4.3% annually whereas that of OBR declined by 6.9% annually. The utilization of ABR showed minimal change. Notably, the LP was performed more frequently in younger patients over time. The percentage of patients aged < 25 years who underwent the LP increased from 30% to 41% from 2010 to 2019 (CAGR, +3.4%). There was a trend toward the performance of more LPs in men than in women (+1.2% vs. -3.5%, P < .05), although most cases (68%) were still performed in men.

CONCLUSION

ABR continues to account for most shoulder instability procedures. The LP had the greatest increase in the utilization rate from 2010 to 2019 and has now surpassed OBR in the utilization rate. ABB procedures are also being more frequently performed but only represent a minority of stabilization cases. During the course of the study period, a greater percentage of patients undergoing shoulder instability procedures were male individuals and were aged < 25 years.

The Use of Multiple Imaging Studies Before Shoulder Stabilization Surgery Is Increasing

Purpose

To determine the incidence of preoperative shoulder imaging, explore the prevalence of obtaining multiple advanced imaging studies, and identify patient characteristics associated with specific imaging studies before anterior versus posterior shoulder stabilization surgery.

Methods

The PearlDiver database was queried for patients who underwent anterior or posterior shoulder stabilization surgery from 2010 to 2019. The incidence of imaging studies within a year of surgery was collected. Patient characteristics were compared between groups using one-way analysis of variance or χ² test.

Results

In total, 10,252 patients underwent anterior shoulder stabilization surgery, and 1,108 patients underwent posterior shoulder stabilization surgery. Imaging use before anterior and posterior shoulder stabilization surgery included plain radiographs (69%, 70%, respectively), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 43%, 33%), and computed tomography (CT; 22%, 22%). In total, 1,098 patients (11%) received MRI and CT before anterior stabilization surgery and 85 patients (8%) received MRI and CT before posterior stabilization surgery. Over time, the incidence of obtaining MRI and CT increased before anterior (z = 2.54, P = .011) and posterior (z = 2.36, P = .018) stabilization surgery.

Conclusions

This study highlights the increasing use of multiple imaging studies before shoulder stabilization surgery over recent years, including plain radiographs, MRI, and CT imaging. In total, 45% of anterior shoulder stabilization patients and 41% of posterior shoulder stabilization patients obtained more than 1 imaging study within a year of surgery, with a recent increase in patients obtaining both MR and CT scans preoperatively.

Statement of Clinical Relevance

The increasing use of multiple preoperative imaging studies observed in this study highlights an opportunity for new imaging technology to streamline and improve the preoperative workup.

Shoulder Latarjet Surgery Shows Wide Variation in Reported Indications, Techniques, Perioperative Treatment, and Definition of Outcomes, Complications, and Failure: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review and compare the surgical indications, technique, perioperative treatment, outcomes measures, and how recurrence of instability was reported and defined after coracoid transfer procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature examining open coracoid transfer outcomes was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the Cochrane registry, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from 2010 to 2020. Inclusion criteria included open coracoid transfer techniques, including the Bristow or Latarjet technique, full text availability, human studies, and English language.

RESULTS

A screen of 1,096 coracoid transfer studies yielded 72 studies, which met inclusion criteria with a total of 4,312 shoulders. One study was a randomized controlled trial, but the majority of them were retrospective. Of those, 65 studies reported on postoperative outcome scores, complication rates, revision rate, and recurrence rates. Forty-three reported on range of motion results. Thirty studies reported on primary coracoid transfer only, 7 on revision only, and 30 on both primary and revision, with 5 not reporting. Average follow-up was 26.9 months (range: 1-316.8 months). Indications for coracoid transfer, technique, perioperative care, complications, and how failure was reported varied greatly among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet and coracoid transfer surgery varies greatly in its indications, technique, and postoperative care. Further, there is great variation in reporting of complications, as well as recurrence and failure and how it is defined. Although coracoid transfer is a successful treatment with a long history, greater consistency regarding these factors is essential for appropriate patient education and surgeon knowledge.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

The Bristow-Latarjet procedure for revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart: a retrospective case series of 59 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart prevents return to sports and remains a surgical challenge. We aim to assess clinical and radiologic outcomes after coracoid bone-block performed either open or under arthroscopy, for the management of failed arthroscopic Bankart PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with anterior instability recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart were revised with a Bristow or Latarjet procedure performed either open (25 cases) or under arthroscopy (34 cases). Patients were reviewed for clinical and radiologic examination at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Glenohumeral bony lesions were evaluated preoperatively with computed tomographic scans. Postoperative bone-block position, union, and postinstability arthritis were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 89 months (24-193). The epidemiologic analysis showed that patients with failed arthroscopic Bankart were young (age <23 years), 58 (98%) were practicing sports, with contact/forced overhead sports (53%), often in competition (53%), had hyperlaxity (71%), and for the most part of them glenohumeral bone loss (88%). Their mean preoperative Instability Severity Index Score was 5.4 ± 2.2 points. After revision with Bristow-Latarjet procedure, 53 patients (91%) returned to sports, 37 (70%) to their previous sports activity, and 17 (46%) to their previous level. No patient suffered recurrent dislocation. Four patients (7%) had recurrent subluxations, all after open procedure; 8 patients (14.5%) had persistent anterior apprehension. A large and deep Hill-Sachs lesion was a risk factor for persistent anterior apprehension (P = .002) and lower level when returned to sports (P = .04). Ninety-two percent of bone-blocks were positioned flush with the glenoid anterior rim, with 84% of bone union. At last follow-up, 5% of patients had severe postinstability osteoarthritis (Samilson 4).

CONCLUSION

The Bristow-Latarjet, performed either open or under arthroscopy, is an efficient procedure to restore shoulder stability and allow returning to sports in patients with failed arthroscopic Bankart and glenoid bone loss. Patients with a large and deep Hill-Sachs lesion had more persistent anterior apprehension and a lower sports level.

Anchor Arthropathy of the Shoulder Joint After Instability Repair: Outcomes Improve With Revision Surgery

PURPOSE

To report clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision surgery after diagnosis of anchor-induced arthropathy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision arthroscopic shoulder surgery and were diagnosed with post-instability glenohumeral arthropathy performed from January 2006 to May 2018 were included in the current study. Patients were excluded if they underwent prior open shoulder procedures, if glenoid bone loss was present, or if prerevision imaging and records were incomplete or not available. Data included initial diagnosis and index procedure performed, presenting arthropathy symptoms including duration, exam findings before revision surgery, and surgical intervention. PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were included with a mean (± standard deviation) age at presentation of 35.2 ± 12.1 years (range 16 to 59). The follow-up rate was 86%, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 1.1 to 10.6). Mean time to development of arthropathy symptoms was 48.2 months (range <1 month to 13.8 years), all presenting with pain and decreased range of motion on exam. At time of revision surgery, all patients underwent either open or arthroscopic removal of previous implants, including anchors and suture material. Six patients underwent additional revision stabilization procedures, 1 underwent total shoulder arthroplasty, and 7 underwent arthroscopic intraarticular debridement, capsular release, and chondroplasty with or without microfracture. Pain significantly improved in 79% of patients (P = .05). Significant improvements in all PROMs were observed, including 12-item Short Form (43.8 to 54.8, P < .01); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, shortened version (31.8 to 8.4, P < .01); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (47.0 to 84.5, P < .05); and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (61.6 to 92.1, P < .01). Average external rotation significantly improved, from 31° ± 22° to 52° ± 24° (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Rapid intervention after diagnosis, through either revision arthroscopic or open debridement and stabilization, can lead to significant improvement in range of motion, pain, and overall patient function and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

Evaluating the results of Bankart repair in recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation

INTRODUCTION

Bankart procedure is considered a safe and effective technique in the management of traumatic shoulder dislocation. Various studies have evaluated the results of Bankart Repair in different populations. The aim of the current study is to evaluate and report the outcomes of Bankart capsulorrhaphy in patients with recurrent shoulder dislocation in Iran.

METHODS

This is a clinical trial without a control group that was performed in 2021. The study population consisted of all patients diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation and Bankart lesion that were candidates for Bankart capsulorrhaphy in 2012-2020. All patients that met the inclusion criteria entered the study using census method. We assessed variables including shoulder range of motion (ROM), shoulder joint symptoms using Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, Rowe score, Constant Shoulder Score and patient's quality of life using 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument (SF-36) before surgeries and within 2 months, 6 months and 1 year after surgeries.

RESULTS

Data of 300 patients were analyzed. All patients underwent Bankart capsulorrhaphy. Patients were followed up for minimum of 1 year after surgery. These data showed improvements in external rotation, abduction, DASH score, Rowe score and SF-36 in patients (P < 0.05 for all items). No significant changes were observed within 1 year in forward elevation (P = 0.07), internal rotation (P = 0.125) and Constant Shoulder Score (P = 0.082).

CONCLUSION

Bankart surgery is an effective method for reducing pain and recurrence of shoulder dislocation. Based on our results, using Bankart surgery led to significantly increased shoulder functions among patients.

Glenoid Pathology, Skeletal Immaturity, and Multiple Preoperative Instability Events Are Risk Factors for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability After Arthroscopic Stabilization in Adolescent Athletes

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors for recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic stabilization in adolescent athletes.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was undertaken of all patients younger than 18 years undergoing arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for anterior instability between 2009 and 2016. Two patient cohorts were identified: (1) patients with recurrent instability (frank dislocations or subluxations) after arthroscopic stabilization and (2) an age- and sex-matched cohort of patients with no recurrent instability at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up from index surgery. Patient demographic, injury, radiographic, and surgical variables were recorded. Variables with P < .10 on univariate analysis were entered into a binary logistic multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 35 patients (20.5%) in whom arthroscopic stabilization failed at a mean of 1.2 ± 1.0 years after their index surgical procedure. A separate age- and sex-matched cohort of 35 patients with no evidence of recurrent instability was identified (mean follow-up, 5.4 ± 2.0 years; minimum follow-up, 2 years). Univariate analysis identified increased glenoid bone loss (P = .039), decreased glenoid retroversion (P = .024), and more than 1 instability event prior to surgery (P = .017) as significant risk factors for recurrent instability. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that glenoid retroversion less than 6°, skeletal immaturity, and more than 1 prior instability event significantly and independently predicted future recurrence. The risk of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization was increased by 3 times in patients with 2 risk factors and by 4 times in patients with all 3 risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior glenoid bone loss, glenoid version, skeletal immaturity, and multiple preoperative instability events are risk factors for failed arthroscopic stabilization in adolescent athletes with anterior instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Evolving Concepts in the Management of Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

Shoulder instability exists on a spectrum ranging from subtle subluxation and pain to dislocation and can be the result of a traumatic event or repetitive microtrauma. Shoulder instability can result in significant disability and often requires surgical intervention, especially amongst younger, active patient populations. The optimal treatment of shoulder instability depends on the degree of instability and concomitant pathology involving the labrum, capsule, and bony anatomy of the glenoid and humeral head. Even with surgical intervention, recurrent instability remains a relatively common and difficult problem to address.

PURPOSE

With a focus on anterior instability, the purpose of this review article is to discuss the current assessment and treatment of shoulder instability, and highlight current and future treatment modalities, as well as to identify current trends and deficiencies in our current management. We also provide an algorithm for the surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Literature databases were extensively searched for recent articles related to the mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of shoulder instability to comprise a comprehensive review.

CONCLUSION

Although there are multiple treatment modalities available for shoulder instability, such as nonoperative management, open and arthroscopic Bankart repair, Latarjet procedures, and remplissage, orthopaedic surgeons continue to learn about the most appropriate method of management as increasing long-term outcomes become available.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Survey.

Return to Play After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

Background

Revision shoulder stabilizations are becoming increasingly common. Returning to play after revision shoulder stabilizations is important to patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the return-to-play rate after revision anterior shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or free bone block procedures.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

All English-language studies published between 2000 and 2020 that reported on return to play after revision anterior shoulder stabilization were reviewed. Clinical outcomes that were evaluated included rate of overall return to play, level of return to play, and time to return to play. Study quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score.

Results

Eighteen studies (1 level 2; 17 level 4; mean Downs and Black score, 10.1/31) on revision anterior shoulder stabilization reported on return to play and met inclusion criteria (7 arthroscopic, 5 open, 3 Latarjet, and 3 bony augmentation), with a total of 564 revision cases (mean age, 27.9 years; 84.1% male). The weighted mean length of follow-up was 52.5 months. The overall weighted rate of return to play was 80.1%. The weighted mean rate of return to play was 84.0% (n = 153) after arthroscopic revision, 91.5% (n = 153) after open revision, 88.1% (n = 149) after Latarjet, and 73.8% (n = 65) after bone augmentation. The weighted mean rate of return to same level of play was 69.7% for arthroscopic revision, 70.0% for open revision, 67.1% for Latarjet revision, and 61.8% after bone block revision. There were 5 studies that reported on time to return to play, with a weighted mean of 7.75 months (4 arthroscopic) and 5.2 months (1 Latarjet). The weighted mean rates of complication (for studies that provided it) were 3.3% after arthroscopic revision (n = 174), 3.5% after open revision (n = 110), 9.3% after Latarjet revision (n = 108), and 45.8% after bone block revision (n = 72).

Conclusion

Revision using open stabilization demonstrated the highest return-to-play rate. Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play but had higher complication rates. When evaluated for return to same level of play, arthroscopic, open, and Latarjet had similar rates, and bone block had lower rates. The choice of an optimal revision shoulder stabilization technique, however, depends on patient goals. Higher-quality studies are needed to compare treatments regarding return to play after revision shoulder stabilization.

Surgical treatment for recurrent shoulder instability: factors influencing surgeon decision making

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for recurrent anterior shoulder instability remains controversial, particularly in the face of glenoid and/or humeral bone loss. The purpose of this study was to use a contingent-behavior questionnaire (CBQ) to determine which factors drive surgeons to perform bony procedures over soft tissue procedures to address recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A CBQ survey presented each respondent with 32 clinical vignettes of recurrent shoulder instability that contained 8 patient factors. The factors included (1) age, (2) sex, (3) hand dominance, (4) number of previous dislocations, (5) activity level, (6) generalized laxity, (7) glenoid bone loss, and (8) glenoid track. The survey was distributed to fellowship-trained surgeons in shoulder/elbow or sports medicine. Respondents were asked to recommend either a soft tissue or bone-based procedure, then specifically recommend a type of procedure. Responses were analyzed using a multinomial-logit regression model that quantified the relative importance of the patient characteristics in choosing bony procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy orthopedic surgeons completed the survey, 33 were shoulder/elbow fellowship trained and 37 were sports medicine fellowship trained; 52% were in clinical practice ≥10 years and 48% <10 years; and 95% reported that the shoulder surgery made up at least 25% of their practice. There were 53% from private practice, 33% from academic medicine, and 14% in government settings. Amount of glenoid bone loss was the single most important factor driving surgeons to perform bony procedures over soft tissue procedures, followed by the patient age (19-25 years) and the patient activity level. The number of prior dislocations and glenoid track status did not have a strong influence on respondents' decision making. Twenty-one percent glenoid bone loss was the threshold of bone loss that influenced decision toward a bony procedure. If surgeons performed 10 or more open procedures per year, they were more likely to perform a bony procedure.

CONCLUSION

The factors that drove surgeons to choose bony procedures were the amount of glenoid bone loss with the threshold at 21%, patient age, and their activity demands. Surprisingly, glenoid track status and the number of previous dislocations did not strongly influence surgical treatment decisions. Ten open shoulder procedures a year seems to provide a level of comfort to recommend bony treatment for shoulder instability.

Evaluating the effects of arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet shoulder stabilisation procedures on shoulder joint neuromechanics and function: a single-centre, parallel-arm trial protocol

Introduction

Shoulder instability injuries are common in sports involving collisions and overhead movements. Arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet are two commonly used surgical stabilisation procedures. There is a lack of knowledge surrounding movement strategies, joint loading and muscle strength after each of these procedures. This study will compare: (1) shoulder joint neuromechanics during activities of daily living and an overhead sporting task; (2) shoulder range of motion; (3) shoulder strength; and (4) self-reported shoulder function and health status, between individuals who have undergone an arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet.

Methods and analysis

This is a prospective cohort, single-centre, non-randomised parallel arm study of surgical interventions for athletic shoulder instability injuries. Thirty participants will be recruited. Of these, 20 will have experienced one or more traumatic shoulder instability injuries requiring surgical stabilisation—and will undergo an arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. The remaining 10 participants will have no history of shoulder instability injury and act as controls. Participants will undergo baseline testing and be followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months. A two-way (group×time) analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor (ie, time) will compare each outcome measure between groups across time points.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by the Barwon Health and Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committees. Outcomes will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at relevant scientific conferences.

Trial registration number

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000016932).

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift restores physiological capsular volume in patients with anterior shoulder instability

PURPOSE

Capsular volume reduction in the context of anterior arthroscopic shoulder stabilization represents an important but uncontrolled parameter. The aim of this study was to analyse capsular volume reduction by arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift in patients with and without ligamentous hyperlaxity compared to a control group.

METHODS

In the context of a prospective controlled study, intraoperative capsular volume measurements were performed in 32 patients with anterior shoulder instability before and after arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift. The results were compared to those of a control group of 50 patients without instability. Physiological shoulder joint volumes were calculated and correlated with biometric parameters (sex, age, height, weight and BMI).

RESULTS

Patients with anterior shoulder instability showed a mean preinterventional capsular volume of 35.6 ± 10.6 mL, which was found to be significantly reduced to 19.3 ± 5.4 mL following arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift (relative capsular volume reduction: 45.9 ± 21.9%; P < 0.01). Pre-interventional volumes were significantly greater in hyperlax than in non-hyperlax patients, while post-interventional volumes did not differ significantly. The average shoulder joint volume of the control group was 21.1 ± 7.0 mL, which was significantly correlated with sex, height and weight (P < 0.01). Postinterventional capsular volumes did not significantly differ from those of the controls (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with an individualized capsular shift enabled the restoration of physiological capsular volume conditions in hyperlax and non-hyperlax patients with anterior shoulder instability. Current findings allow for individual adjustment and intraoperative control of capsular volume reduction to avoid over- or under correction of the shoulder joint volume. Future clinical studies should evaluate, whether individualized approaches to arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are associated with superior clinical outcome.

Administrative Databases Used for Sports Medicine Research Demonstrate Significant Differences in Underlying Patient Demographics and Resulting Surgical Trends

PURPOSE

To discern differences between the PearlDiver and MarketScan databases with regards to patient demographics, costs, reoperations, and complication rates for isolated meniscectomy.

METHODS

We queried the PearlDiver Humana Patient Records Database and the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database for all patients who had record of meniscectomy denoted by Current Procedure Terminology 29880 or 29881 between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016. Those that had any other knee procedure at the same time as the meniscectomy were excluded, and the first instance of isolated meniscectomy was recorded. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, reoperations, 30- and 90-day complication rates, and costs were collected from both databases. Pearson's χ² test with Yate's continuity correction and the Student t test were used to compare the 2 databases, and an alpha value of 0.05 was set as significant.

RESULTS

We identified 441,147 patients with isolated meniscectomy from the MarketScan database (0.36% of total database), approximately 10 times the number of patients (n = 49,924; 0.20% of total database) identified from PearlDiver. The PearlDiver population was significantly older (median age: 65-69) than the MarketScan cohort, where all patients were younger than 65 (median age: 52; P < .001). Average Charlson Comorbidity Index was significantly lower for MarketScan (0.172, standard deviation [SD]: 0.546) compared with PearlDiver (1.43, SD: 2.05; P < .001), even when we restricted the PearlDiver cohort to patients younger than 65 years (1.02, SD: 1.74; P < .001). The PearlDiver <65 years subcohort also had increased 30- (relative risk 1.53 [1.40-1.67]) and 90-day (relative risk 1.56 [1.47-1.66]) postoperative complications compared with MarketScan. Overall, laterality coding was more prevalent in the PearlDiver database.

CONCLUSIONS

For those undergoing isolated meniscectomy, the MarketScan database comprised an overall larger and younger cohort of patients with fewer comorbidities, even when examining only subjects younger than 65 years of age.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Significant Changes in the Diagnosis, Injury Severity and Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability Over Time in a U.S. Population

Purpose

To report the annual incidence of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) diagnosis, injury severity, and surgical stabilization in a U.S. population.

Methods

An established U.S. geographic database was used to identify patients < 40 years old with diagnoses of ASI from 1994-2016. Medical records were reviewed to obtain patient demographics, histories, imaging results, and surgical details. Age- and sex-specific incidence rates were calculated and adjusted to the 2010 U.S. population. Poisson regression was performed to examine trends by timeline, sex and age.

Results

The study population consisted of 652 patients with ASI and a mean age of 21.5 years (range, 3.6-39.5). Comparing 2015-2016 to 1994-1999, we found an increase in the number of dislocations (from 1.0-1.9; P = 0.016) and total instability events (from 2.3-3.4; P = 0.041) per patient prior to presentation to a physician. There was a trend in increased diagnosis of bony Bankart and/or Hill-Sachs on MRI over time, with these lesions documented in 96% of patients undergoing MRI in 2015-2018 compared to 52.9% in 1994-1999 (P < .001). The use of arthroscopic procedures increased and peaked in 2005-2009 (90% of surgical cases performed). The proportion of open Latarjet procedures increased from 2010-2014 (14%) and 2015-2018 (31%).

Conclusions

The age- and sex- adjusted incidence of ASI diagnosis in a U.S. population from 1994-2016 is comparable to that demonstrated in Canadian and European populations. This study demonstrates an increasing number of instability events prior to surgical evaluation, which may correlate with patients’ more commonly presenting with bone loss and requiring more aggressive surgical treatment or that ASI is being more frequently cared for and documented by present-day orthopedic surgeons.

Level of Evidence

Level III, cross-sectional study.

Assessment and Trends in the Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles in Shoulder Instability

Background:

Citation counts have often been used as a surrogate for the scholarly impact of a particular study, but they do not necessarily correlate with higher-quality investigations. In recent decades, much of the literature regarding shoulder instability is focused on surgical techniques to correct bone loss and prevent recurrence.

Purpose:

To determine (1) the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability and (2) if there is a correlation between the number of citations and level of evidence or methodological quality.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

A literature search was performed on both the Scopus and the Web of Science databases to determine the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability between 1985 and 2019. The search terms used included “shoulder instability,” “humeral defect,” and “glenoid bone loss.” Methodological scores were calculated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Jadad scale, and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score.

Results:

The mean number of citations and mean citation density were 222.7 ± 123.5 (range, 124-881.5) and 16.0 ± 7.9 (range, 6.9-49.0), respectively. The most common type of study represented was the retrospective case series (evidence level, 4; n = 16; 32%) The overall mean MCMS, Jadad score, and MINORS score were 61.1 ± 10.1, 1.4 ± 0.9, and 16.0 ± 3.0, respectively. There were also no correlations found between mean citations or citation density versus each of the methodological quality scores.

Conclusion:

The list of top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability comprised studies with low-level evidence and low methodological quality. Higher-quality study methodology does not appear to be a significant factor in whether studies are frequently cited in the literature.

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.

Rehabilitation After Shoulder Instability Surgery: Keys for Optimizing Recovery

The specific approach to rehabilitation after surgical management of the unstable shoulder is dependent on the severity and chronicity of the instability. Establishing dynamic stability throughout the athlete's functional range of movement is critical to a successful outcome. The pace progression is guided by surgical (technique, injury pattern, and strength of repair) and patient factors (healing potential, prior health status, and psychosocial factors). The primary goal of treatment is to restore function and return the athlete to sport. The process should be guided by surpassing functional criteria for progression and tissue healing time.

The efficacy of a phone assistance nursing program for functional outcomes in patients after shoulder instability surgery: A protocol for randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We conduct this research protocol for the assessment of the effect of phone-assisted care programs on functional outcomes in patients receiving shoulder instability surgery.

METHODS

This is a randomized controlled, single center trial which will be implemented from October 2020 to December 2021. This trial is conducted according to the SPIRIT Checklist of randomized researches. It was authorized via the Ethics Committee of the First People's Hospital of Xiangyang city affiliated to Hubei Medical College (XY234-026). Ninety participants who undergo shoulder instability surgery are analyzed. Patients are randomly divided into control group (standard management group, with 45 patients) and study group (the phone program group, with 45 patients). In control group, the exercises at home are not monitored. Whereas in study group, patients are asked about their at-home activities, and the extra coaching sessions are provided to patients on self-care, exercise guidance, and the importance of exercise at home, and then answers to their questions. The primary outcome is the range of motion of the shoulder joint, and the pain arcs are determined through the range of motion. The extra assessments include the shoulder functional outcome, pain, and the quality of life. All the analysis needed in this study is implemented with SPSS (IBM, Chicago, USA) for Windows Version 19.0.

RESULTS

The clinical outcome variables between groups are shown in Table.

CONCLUSION

This investigation can offer a reliable basis for the effectiveness of phone assistance nursing program in patients after shoulder instability surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

researchregistry6010.

Surgical Stabilization of Shoulder Instability in Patients With or Without a History of Seizure: A Comparative Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare patients from a large multicenter cohort with a history of seizure and those without a history of seizure regarding preoperative and intraoperative findings and surgical procedures performed.

METHODS

Patients undergoing shoulder stabilization from 2011 to 2018 at 11 orthopaedic centers were prospectively enrolled. Those with a history of seizure were identified and compared with non-seizure controls. Preoperative demographic, history, physical examination, and imaging findings were collected. Intraoperative findings and surgical procedures performed were recorded. The Mann-Whitney test, χ² test, and logistic regression analysis were used to examine differences between the groups and define independent risk factors. Owing to the number of statistical tests performed, the false discovery method was used to determine adjusted P values to achieve α < .05.

RESULTS

During enrollment, 25 of 1,298 shoulder stabilization patients (1.9%) had a history of seizure. The sex ratio and age were similar between groups, as was posterior instability incidence (23.2% in control group vs 28.0% in seizure group). Seizure patients more frequently had more than 5 dislocations in the year preceding surgery (P = .016) and had increased preoperative radiographic evidence of bone loss (P < .001). Intraoperatively, seizure patients had a higher prevalence of reverse Hill-Sachs lesions (P < .001) and large (>30% of glenoid fossa) bony Bankart lesions (P < .001). Arthroscopic Bankart repair was the most common procedure in both groups. However, open procedures were performed in 15.6% of controls and 40.0% of seizure patients (P = .001). These procedures were most commonly bony procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Seizure patients had more prior dislocations, had more preoperative bone loss, and underwent more open stabilization procedures than controls because of bone loss. Studies examining recurrence after stabilization will help establish appropriate management practices in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective review of prospectively collected cohort.

Outcome Measures After Shoulder Stabilization in the Athletic Population: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Patient-Reported Metrics

Background:

Athletic endeavor can require the “athletic shoulder” to tolerate significant load through supraphysiological range and often under considerable repetition. Outcome measures are valuable when determining an athlete’s safe return to sport. Few data are available to guide a clinician’s choice from the variety of measures available.

Purpose:

To describe the use of quantifiable objective outcome measures and patient-reported outcome tools after glenohumeral joint stabilization, specifically in an athletic population. The secondary aim of our study was to assess whether the method of measurement used was clearly described and standardized to aid clinical interpretation.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed in December 2018 based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. After the application of selection criteria, a full review of identified papers, and screening of reference lists, a total of 62 studies were included in the review. All studies were independently appraised for quality, predefined data fields were populated and cross-checked for accuracy, and results were then summarized from these data fields.

Results:

Of the 62 included studies, 94% used a quantifiable objective clinical outcome. A majority (85%) of the studies measured range of motion, 21% recorded muscle strength, 5% measured electromyographic activity, 5% examined shoulder kinematics, and 3% assessed joint proprioception after surgery. However, only 18% of the studies clearly described a standardized method of measuring the outcome. Nearly all (95%) of the studies used at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure. The Rowe score was most commonly used (35%).

Conclusion:

We must standardize and clearly describe the use of quantifiable objective outcome measures to aid clinical interpretation. A concerted effort should also be made to standardize the use of patient-reported outcome tools after shoulder stabilization in the athletic population.

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

Background

Primary shoulder stabilization is successful, but there continues to be a risk of recurrence after operative repair, particularly in the young athlete. It is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes after various revision stabilization techniques to best counsel patients and manage expectations.

Purpose

To analyze recurrent instability and revision surgery rates in patients who underwent revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization procedures with either arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of level 2 to 4 evidence studies using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization (arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. The rate of recurrent instability, rate of revision surgery, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were extracted and reported. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score.

Results

A total of 37 studies met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis: 20 studies evaluated arthroscopic repair, 8 evaluated open repair, 5 evaluated Latarjet procedure, 3 evaluated bone block, and 2 evaluated capsular reconstruction. There was 1 study included in both arthroscopic and Latarjet procedures, for a total of 1110 revision cases. There was 1 level 2 study, and the remainder were level 3 or 4 with poor Downs and Black scores. Participants analyzed were most commonly young (weighted mean age, 26.1 years) and male (78.4%). The weighted mean clinical follow-up after revision surgery was 47.8 months. The weighted mean rate of recurrent instability was 3.8% (n = 245) after the Latarjet procedure, 13.4% (n = 260) after open repair, 16.0% (n = 531) after arthroscopic repair, 20.8% (n = 72) after bone block, and 31.0% (n = 35) after capsular reconstruction. The weighted mean rate of additional revision surgery was 0.0% after bone block, 0.02% after the Latarjet procedure, 9.0% after arthroscopic repair, 9.3% after open repair, and 22.8% after capsular reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes and objective measures of range of motion and strength improved with all revision techniques.

Conclusion

The current review identifies a deficiency in the literature pertaining to consistent meaningful outcomes and the effect of bone loss after revision shoulder stabilization. Published studies demonstrate, however, that revision shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or bone block techniques yielded satisfactory objective and patient-reported outcomes. The Latarjet procedure exhibited the lowest recurrent instability rate. This study confirms that recurrent instability remains a common problem, despite revision shoulder stabilization. The quality of research in revision shoulder stabilization remains poor, and higher quality studies are needed to establish best practices for treatment of this complex problem.

Editorial Commentary: Sometimes You Don't Know What You've Got Until It's Gone-The Effect of Missing Data in "Big Data" Studies

Big-data studies are powerful tools for comparative-effectiveness research, but because of the large number of included patients, they risk falsely identifying a difference when none exists because large sample sizes may result in statistically significant differences that have little clinical importance. Other limitations of big-data studies include lack of generalizability because of inclusion of only specific patient populations, lack of validated outcome measures, recording bias or clerical error, and vast troves of missing data. As such, the methods and results of big-data studies require careful scrutiny to ensure that the conclusions are correct.

Postoperative MR Imaging in Shoulder Instability and Intra-articular Damage

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

A Comparison of Physical Therapy Protocols Between Open Latarjet Coracoid Transfer and Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

CONTEXT

Recent studies examining return to sport after traumatic shoulder instability suggest faster return-to-sport time lines after bony stabilization when compared with soft tissue stabilization. The purpose of the current study was to define variability across online Latarjet rehabilitation protocols and to compare Latarjet with Bankart repair rehabilitation time lines.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Online searches were utilized to identify publicly available rehabilitation protocols from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited academic orthopaedic surgery programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

RESULTS

Of the 183 ACGME-accredited orthopaedic programs reviewed, 14 institutions (7.65%) had publicly available rehabilitation protocols. A web-based search yielded 17 additional protocols from private sports medicine practices. Of the 31 protocols included, 31 (100%) recommended postoperative sling use and 26 (84%) recommended elbow, wrist, and hand range of motion exercises. Full passive forward flexion goals averaged 3.22 ± 2.38 weeks postoperatively, active range of motion began on average at 5.22 ± 1.28 weeks, and normal scapulothoracic motion by 9.26 ± 4.8 weeks postoperatively. Twenty (65%) protocols provided specific recommendations for return to nonoverhead sport-specific activities, beginning at an average of 17 ± 2.8 weeks postoperatively. This was compared with overhead sports or throwing activities, for which 18 (58%) of protocols recommended beginning at a similar average of 17.1 ± 3.3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Similar to Bankart repair protocols, Latarjet rehabilitation protocols contain a high degree of variability with regard to exercises and motion goal recommendations. However, many milestones and start dates occur earlier in Latarjet protocols when compared with Bankart-specific protocols. Consequently, variability in the timing of rehabilitation goals may contribute to earlier return to play metrics identified in the broader literature for the Latarjet procedure when compared with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION TAXONOMY (SORT)

Level C.

An Algorithmic Approach to the Management of Shoulder Instability

The recurrence of anterior shoulder instability can be as high as 86.7% in high-risk patients who are treated nonoperatively after their first incident of instability. CT and MR arthrography are necessary for preoperative imaging and assessment of glenoid bone loss. Patient expectations in conjunction with appropriate preoperative imaging are critical for surgical planning. Arthroscopic shoulder stabilization is often sufficient in most cases where glenoid bone loss is minimal, with recurrent dislocation rates close to 4% in the literature. Open stabilization procedures are generally indicated in patients with greater than 20% glenoid bone loss.

Factors Influencing Surgeon's Choice of Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To investigate preoperative factors associated with selection of surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Patient demographics, initial physical examinations, and patient-oriented outcome questionnaires were collected prospectively from 26 shoulder surgeons at 10 sites. Symptom duration, number of dislocations, sport, history of prior stabilization procedure, Hill-Sachs/glenoid bone loss, pain level, and failure of conservative treatment were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher's exact test and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 564 patients who underwent surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability from November 2012 to June 2017 were enrolled. Of these, 426 shoulders underwent arthroscopic stabilization alone, 38 underwent arthroscopic stabilization with remplissage, 28 underwent open Bankart repair, and 72 underwent a Latarjet procedure. Predictors for undergoing Latarjet (P < .003) were symptom duration (75% had symptoms for >1 year), number of dislocations (47% had >5 dislocations), revision surgery (69%), Hill-Sachs lesion size (45% had a lesion between 11% and 20% of the humeral head), and glenoid bone loss (75% of Latarjet patients had 11% to 30% loss). Predictors for undergoing open Bankart repair (P < .001) were number of dislocations (32% had >5 dislocations), revision surgeries (54%), and glenoid bone loss (11% of open Bankart patients had 11% to 20% loss). History of prior shoulder surgery was the only significant predictor of open versus arthroscopic Bankart procedure. Prediction models showed athletes involved in high-risk sports were 2.61 times more likely to have a Latarjet (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Indications for the Latarjet were: humeral and glenoid bone loss, duration of symptoms, number of dislocations, and revision stabilizations. Athletes involved in high-risk sports were more likely to undergo the Latarjet procedure, even if other predictive factors were not present. The open Bankart procedure was the least common procedure performed, with a history of prior shoulder surgery being the only predictor for use when treating recurrent instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective prognostic cohort investigation.

Imaging Quantification of Glenoid Bone Loss in Patients With Glenohumeral Instability: A Systematic Review

To listen to the podcast associated with this article, please select one of the following: iTunes, Google Play, or direct download. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine the most accurate imaging techniques to measure glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability through a systematic review of existing literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a comprehensive literature search of five databases for original research measuring glenoid bone loss at radiography, CT, or MRI, using prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, or cadaveric study designs up to January 2018. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool aided qualitative assessment of the methods. Data extraction included results, index test interobserver agreement, and accuracy analysis. RESULTS. Twenty-seven studies (evaluating 1425 shoulders) met inclusion criteria after full-text review by two independent readers. Glenoid bone loss was assessed, comparing several index tests to nonimaging (n = 18 studies) and imaging (n = 11) reference standards. Compared with arthroscopic or cadaveric measurements, 2D CT was accurate in six of seven studies (86%), 3D CT was accurate in eight of 10 studies (80%), 2D MRI was accurate in five of seven studies (71%), 3D MRI was accurate in four of four studies (100%), and radiographs were accurate in zero of four studies (0%). Best-fit circle methods (glenoid width or Pico surface area) were the most common and both were accurate (86-90% and 75-100%, respectively) using CT and MRI. Studies had good external validity (78%). Most risk for bias arose from patient selection and reference standards. Only two studies reported sensitivity and specificity, both comparing CT to arthroscopy using different bone loss thresholds (20% and 25%). CONCLUSION. CT and MRI (2D or 3D) accurately measure glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability, but radiographs do not. Best-fit circle measurement techniques are reliable and accurate. Current literature about glenoid bone loss is heterogeneous, and future studies should focus on diagnosis of clinically relevant glenoid bone loss.

Arthroscopic Bone Graft Procedure Combined With Arthroscopic Subscapularis Augmentation for Recurrent Anterior Instability With Glenoid Bone Defect

Glenoid bone loss and capsular deficiency represent critical points of arthroscopic Bankart repair failures. The purpose of this Technical Note is to present an all-arthroscopic bone block procedure associated with arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation for treating glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss and anterior capsulolabral deficiency. Two glenoid tunnels are set up from the posterior to the anterior side using a dedicated bone block guide, and 4 buttons are used to fix the graft to the glenoid. The subscapularis tenodesis is performed using a suture tape anchor. This combined arthroscopic technique (bone block associated with arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation) could be a valid and safe alternative to the arthroscopic or open Latarjet procedures.

The cost-effectiveness of the arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the arthroscopic Bankart and the open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness study used a Markov decision chain and Monte-Carlo simulation. Existing literature was reviewed to determine the survivorship and complication rates of these procedures. Health utility states (EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life-years) of the Bankart and Latarjet were prospectively collected. Using these variables, the Monte-Carlo simulation was modeled 100,000 times.

RESULTS

In reviewing the literature, the overall recurrence rate is 14% after the arthroscopic Bankart and 8% after the open Latarjet. Postoperative health utility states were equal between the 2 procedures (mean EQ-5D, 0.930; P = .775). The Monte-Carlo simulation showed that the Bankart had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4214 and the Latarjet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4681 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Both the arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet are highly cost-effective; however, the Bankart is more cost-effective than the Latarjet, primarily because of a lower health utility state after a failed Latarjet. Ultimately, the clinical scenario may favor Latarjet (ie, critical glenoid bone loss) in certain circumstances, and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.

Trends and Risk Factors for 1-Year Revision of the Latarjet Procedure: The New York State Experience During the Past Decade

Little research has been conducted evaluating surgical trends during the past 10 years and subsequent procedure risk factors for patients undergoing bone-blocking procedures for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was queried between 2003 and 2014 to identify patients undergoing soft tissue or bone-blocking procedures for anterior shoulder instability in New York. Patient demographics and 1-year subsequent procedures were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify 1-year subsequent procedure risk factors. From 2003 through 2014, a total of 540 patients had Latarjet procedures performed. During this period, the volume of Latarjet procedures increased by 950%, from 12 procedures in 2003 to 126 procedures in 2014. The volume of open Bankart repairs declined by 77%; arthroscopic Bankart repairs fluctuated, being up (328%) between 2003 and 2012 and then down (6%) between 2012 and 2014. Of the 540 patients, 2.4% (13 of 540) required intervention for recurrent shoulder instability events. Age older than 20 years and workers' compensation were identified as independent risk factors for reoperation. The number of bone-blocking procedures, such as the Latarjet, has increased by nearly 1000% during the past decade in New York. Only 2.4% (13 of 540) of the patients had subsequent shoulder instability interventions. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(3):e389-e394.].

Big Data: Progress or a Big Headache?

Large administrative database, or "big data" research studies can include an immense number of patients. Strengths of research based on big data include generalizability resulting from diverse patients, diverse providers, and diverse clinical settings. Limitations of research based on large administrative databases may include indeterminate quality and obscure purpose of data entry, lack of information regarding confounding variables, and suboptimal clinical outcome measures. Thus, research conclusions based on big data must be scrutinized in a discerning and critical manner.

Risk factors for recurrent instability or revision surgery following arthroscopic Bankart repair

Aims

The factors that predispose to recurrent instability and revision stabilization procedures after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior glenohumeral instability remain unclear. We sought to determine the rate and risk factors associated with ongoing instability in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for instability of the shoulder.

Materials and Methods

We used the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database to identify patients with a diagnosis of anterior instability of the shoulder undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2003 and 2011. Patients were followed for a minimum of three years. Baseline demographics and subsequent further surgery to the ipsilateral shoulder were analyzed. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for recurrent instability.

Results

A total of 5719 patients were analyzed. Their mean age was 24.9 years (sd 9.3); 4013 (70.2%) were male. A total of 461 (8.1%) underwent a further procedure involving the ipsilateral shoulder at a mean of 31.5 months (sd 23.8) postoperatively; 117 (2.1%) had a closed reduction and 344 (6.0%) had further surgery. Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was the most common subsequent surgical procedure (223; 65.4%). Independent risk factors for recurrent instability were: age < 19 years (odds ratio 1.86), Caucasian ethnicity (hazard ratio 1.42), bilateral instability of the shoulder (hazard ratio 2.17), and a history of closed reduction(s) prior to the initial repair (hazard ratio 2.45). Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was associated with significantly higher rates of ongoing persistent instability than revision open stabilization (12.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.041).

Conclusion

The incidence of a further procedure being required in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior glenohumeral instability was 8.1%. Younger age, Caucasian race, bilateral instability, and closed reduction prior to the initial repair were independent risk factors for recurrent instability, while subsequent revision arthroscopic Bankart repair had significantly higher rates of persistent instability than subsequent open revision procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:324–30.

Arthroscopic bone graft procedure combined with arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) for recurrent anterior instability with glenoid bone defect: a cadaver study

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss and capsular deficiency represent critical points of arthroscopic Bankart repair failures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an all-arthroscopic bone block procedure associated with arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) for treating gleno-humeral instability with glenoid bone loss (GBL) and anterior capsulo-labral deficiency. Our hypothesis was that these two procedures could be combined arthroscopically. The feasibility of this technique and its reproducibility, and potential neurovascular complications were evaluated.

METHODS

A tricortical bone graft was harvested from the cadaveric clavicle, and in one case a Xenograft was used. An anterior-inferior GBL of about 25% was created. Two glenoid tunnels were set up from the posterior to the anterior side using a dedicated bone block guide, and four buttons were used to fix the graft to the glenoid. The subscapularis tenodesis was performed using a suture tape anchor. Afterwards, the shoulder was dissected to study the relationship between all portals and nerves. The size of the bone block, its position on the glenoid and the relationship with the subscapularis tendon were investigated.

RESULTS

In all seven specimens (five left and two right shoulders), the bone block was flush with the cartilage and fixed to the anterior-inferior part of the glenoid. No lesions of the surrounding neurovascular structures were observed. No interference was found between the two bone block tunnels and the anchor tunnel used for the tenodesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the feasibility and reproducibility of this combined arthroscopic technique (bone block associated with ASA) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability associated with anterior bone loss and anterior capsular deficiency.