Is arthroscopic surgery for stabilisation of chronic shoulder instability as effective as open surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies including 3044 arthroscopic operations

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.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The role of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be established.

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, recurrences, and complication rates of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet as a primary procedure.

DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and underwent arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization between 2009 and 2018. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on whether Latarjet was performed after a previous instability surgery (revision) or as a primary surgery (primary). Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome (CMSO) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) were assessed pre- and postoperatively with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. In addition, pre- and postoperative levels of sports activity, dislocations, subluxations, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (n = 62 revision; n = 35 primary), with a mean age of 31.0 ± 8.8 and 29.4 ± 7.6 years old in the revision and primary Latajet group, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up in the revision group was 32 months (24-53) and 35.5 months (27.7-42.2) in the primary Latarjet group. No significant differences between groups were observed in Rowe score (revision = 91.4, primary = 94.1; P = .223), CMSO score (revision = 90.7, primary = 94; P = .105), and SANE (revision = 85.8, primary = 87.3; P = .683) postoperatively. However, the postoperative difference in the WOSI score between the revision and primary Latarjet groups was nearly significant (510 ± 334 vs 403 ± 343, respectively; P = .05). Four (6.4%) postoperative dislocations were reported in the revision and 1 (2.8%) in the primary Latarjet group (P = .14). Patients in the revision group had a lower return to the previous level of sports participation (P = .008) and decreased external rotation with the arm by the side compared with the primary Latarjet group (P = .000).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery is a reasonable surgical option in failed Bankart repair cases. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. However, a decreased level of postoperative sports participation and external rotation with the arm by the side can be expected.

Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Latarjet has become an increasingly popular treatment option for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. With the reported complication rates for primary Latarjet surgery, there are concerns about the complications of Latarjet as a revision surgery. It remains unclear if poor results after previous surgical management can be improved with revision Latarjet as well as with primary Latarjet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on 3 databases for studies that compared primary Latarjet with revision Latarjet used after failed arthroscopic stabilization or failed free bone block procedures. From the included studies, demographic data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included for data analysis. Compared with the primary Latarjet cohort, revision Latarjet cohorts had a higher infection rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; RR 0.46, P = .039). The primary Latarjet group showed a greater rate of return to sport (89.7% vs. 80.5%; RR 1.12, P = .41) and less subjective feeling of instability (12.6% vs. 20.9%; RR 0.60, P = .085) compared with the revision Latarjet group; however, this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in complication rates, reoperation, recurrence, and range of motion between primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet groups. Clinical outcome scores such as visual analog scale and Rowe scores were not significantly different between the cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment.

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

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

Anatomic risk factors for arthroscopic Bankart repair failure: A case-control study comparing failure and non-failure groups in an Asian population

Introduction

Post-arthroscopic Bankart repair failure/re-dislocation rates are influenced by several risk factors, including anatomic defects. There is limited evidence on the role of anatomic defects, especially for Hill-Sachs size in on-track lesions. This study aimed to assess glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs lesion and labral tear size and evaluate their contribution to post-operative instability after a primary repair.

Material and methods

Across 169 patients with on-track Bankart lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2010 to 2015, this study matched 14 failure with 14 non-failure cases based on age/gender. Patient demographics, pre-operative radiological parameters (including size of glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesion) and labral tear size were compared between the failure and non-failure groups.

Result

All patients were male with a mean age of 21.01 ± 4.97. Significantly greater glenoid bone loss (p = 0.024) and labral tear size (p = 0.039) were found in the failure group. However, there was no significant difference in mean volume of Hill-Sachs lesion between the two groups (p = 0.739).

Conclusion

Extensive glenoid bone loss and labral tears are risk factors for post-arthroscopic Bankart failure. However, the size of Hill-Sachs lesion is not a risk factor for failure, in a specific group of on-track Hill-Sachs lesions.

Level of evidence

Retrospective Study, Level IV.

Open Latarjet Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for the Treatment of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability in High-Demand Patients With Minimal Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

This study compared the clinical outcomes and return to sports/work between open Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair in high-demand patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability with minimal glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited 30 patients and randomised them to either open Latarjet or arthroscopic Bankart. The mean duration of follow-up in our study was 13.27 months±2.70. All patients were males with a mean age at surgery of 28.6 years (range, 18-41 years).

RESULTS

The overall mean for the Rowe score in the 30 patients increased from 33.5±14 points preoperatively to 79.6±18 points. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative ROM (range of motion) and Rowe score among the Bankart and Latarjet groups. The main finding in our study was the time to return to sports/work which was significantly lower in the Latarjet group (5.2 months) compared to the Bankart group (seven months).

CONCLUSIONS

Open Latarjet is considered a more invasive and non-anatomical procedure, however, it is less costly with a shorter time to return to sports/work compared to the Bankart procedure, which is very crucial for high-demand patients, especially the competitive athletes targeting an early return to sports at the same pre-injury level with minimal incidence of recurrence, making the surgeon's choice very challenging.

Clinical outcomes following open anterior shoulder stabilization for glenohumeral instability in the young collision athlete

BACKGROUND

Anterior glenohumeral instability occurs most commonly in those aged 15-29, with 72% of individuals younger than 22 years suffering recurrent episodes; collision athletes are at particular risk. In the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss, arthroscopic Bankart repair is widely used despite concerns of recurrent dislocations when compared with open techniques. Furthermore, indications for bone-block procedures are evolving with the Latarjet procedure being favored amongst recent authors as a primary stabilization method in elite and contact athletes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of open modified Bankart stabilization in treating anterior glenohumeral instability in young collision athletes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of outcomes of consecutive patients aged 15-20 years who underwent unilateral or bilateral open stabilization for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability over a 7-year period (2007-2015). The cohort was selected as recent literature suggests that this is the group with the highest redislocation rate and poorest outcomes. Outcome assessments included redislocation rate, return to sport, pain score, patient-related satisfaction scores, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (55 male: 5 female) of mean age 18 years (range: 15-20 years) were available for follow-up at 7 years. All but 3 were competitive athletes with 18 competing regionally and 9 internationally; rugby union and rugby league represent the most common sports. Fifty-five of 60 (92%) have returned to their desired level of sport with 62% of athletes returning to their previous level of competition sport and 1 retuning at a higher level. The mean postoperative pain score was 2.5/10. The mean time to return to play was 14 months (range: 5-48 months). Eight of 60 shoulders reported redislocation (13%), 7 of these being traumatic dislocations after return to high-impact sporting activities. At 7 years of follow-up, 4 of 60 shoulders (7%) had undergone revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Young collision athletes represent a challenging cohort of instability patients. This study of open modified Bankart in young collision sport athletes revealed excellent outcomes with 92% return to sport and a low revision rate. The results from this cohort rival those of arthroscopic repair. The open procedure described here in this 7-year series represents a robust, reliable technique that could be considered as an alternative to arthroscopic Bankart due to concern for recurrence, while avoiding potential morbidity and complication of bone-block procedures. There is still a role for the open modified Bankart procedure in treating traumatic anterior instability.

Intra-articular Versus Extra-articular Coracoid Grafts: A Systematic Review of Capsular Repair Techniques During the Latarjet Procedure

Background:

Various methods exist for managing the joint capsule during the Latarjet procedure. Repairing the capsule to the native glenoid rim results in an extra-articular bone block, while repairing it to the remnant coracoacromial ligament stump of the coracoid graft renders it intra-articular. The technique that optimizes patient outcomes is not well defined.

Purpose:

To compare the outcomes of intra-articular and extra-articular bone block techniques for the Latarjet procedure.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we queried the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for all studies reporting outcomes of the Latarjet procedure with a clearly defined method of capsular repair that rendered the coracoid graft intra-articular or extra-articular. The included levels of evidence and degree of heterogeneity in this study precluded meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest included preoperative variables, surgical technique, rehabilitation protocols, functional outcome assessments, recurrent instability, range of motion, and radiographic findings.

Results:

A total of 16 studies including 816 patients were included. A total of 8 studies employed an intra-articular bone block in 338 patients, while the other 8 employed an extra-articular technique in 478 patients. There was variation among studies in reference to baseline patient characteristics, surgical techniques, rehabilitation, methods for assessing patient outcomes, and follow-up times. Rates of postoperative instability were reported in 8 intra-articular (0%, 0%, 2.1%, 2.7%, 3.2%, 5%, 5.4%, 5.9%) and 7 extra-articular (0%, 0%, 1.2%, 2%, 3.9%, 6.3%, 14%) bone block studies. Postoperative osteoarthritis or progression of preoperative osteoarthritis was reported in 5 intra-articular bone block studies (0%, 5.6%, 23.5%, 23.5%, 25%) and 4 extra-articular bone block studies (0%, 1.9%, 5.2%, 8.6%).

Conclusion:

Varying capsular repair methods appeared to provide similar outcomes regarding stability. There was an apparent trend toward higher rates of post-traumatic arthritis among studies in which an intra-articular bone block technique was employed; however, it is possible that this was influenced by substantially different follow-up times between groups and other various sources of heterogeneity among the included studies. There were no studies in the literature directly comparing intra-articular and extra-articular bone block techniques. Large-scale randomized controlled trials or comparative studies are needed to draw stronger conclusions comparing the 2 techniques.

Instability Severity Index Score Does Not Predict the Risk of Shoulder Dislocation after a First Episode Treated Conservatively

The first purpose of this study was to verify the association between Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) and Recurrent Shoulder Dislocation (RSD) after a first episode treated conservatively. The second aim is to identify the risk factors associated with RSD after a primary acute shoulder anterior dislocation treated conservatively. A total of 111 patients with first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation treated at a single trauma centre between January 2014 and March 2016 were enrolled. The main predictive variables of risk factors and the ISIS score were calculated. Among the 85 patients included, 26 cases of RSD were observed (30.6%). Considering the whole population, no significant association between ISIS and RSD were reported. Regarding other risk factors, high-risk working activities and rotator cuff injury had a significantly higher RSD risk. Sex, dominant limb, familiar history, hyperlaxity, contact or overhead sports, competitive sport, post-reduction physiokinesitherapy, return to sports activity time, Hill-Sachs lesion, bony Bankart lesion and great tuberosity fracture did not seem to influence the risk of RSD. No correlation between ISIS score and RSD in patients treated conservatively after a first episode of shoulder dislocation were reported. The only risk factors with a significant association to RSD were high-risk working activities and rotator cuff injury.

Incidence of Re-Dislocation/Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Analysis via Telephone Interviews

INTRODUCTION

Current advances in arthroscopic surgery have led to good outcomes for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. However, recent studies have reported recurrence rates of 4%-19% after ABR. In our survey conducted from February 2002 to December 2010, the post-ABR re-dislocation rate was 8.8%. In 2011, we began performing the ABR with open Bristow (B) procedure or Remplissage (R) procedure in patients with large glenoid or humeral head bone defects and in patients who play collision sports. Therefore, the present study is the second series evaluating the incidence of re-dislocation and instability after recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.

METHOD

Surgery was performed for 84 cases of shoulder instability from January 2011 to August 2017. After excluding 7 open surgeries, 6 reoperations, and 2 patients with multidirectional instability, telephone interviews were conducted with 69 patients. The average follow-up duration was 46.9 months (range, 13-92 months).

RESULT

ABR alone was performed 61 patients; the B procedure was added for 3 patients, and the R procedure was added for 5 patients. Telephone interviews were conducted with 61 patients. There were no cases of re-dislocation or reoperation. Four patients who underwent only ABR experienced postoperative instability, but not to the extent that their daily lives were affected.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the addition of R or B technique to ABR for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation resulted in a 0% re-dislocation rate.

Outcomes and Return to Sport and Work After Open Bankart Repair for Recurrent Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review

Background:

Open Bankart repair provides surgeons and patients with an alternative solution for managing recurrent instability in young athletes with or without minimal bone loss. Despite many studies that have reported low recurrence rates and good functional outcomes after open Bankart repair, we have limited knowledge about the return to sport and work for high-demand populations.

Purpose:

To assess the return to sport and work for high-demand populations after open Bankart repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, outcomes of open Bankart repair with regard to recurrence, and development of osteoarthritic (OA) changes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using keywords as well as Medical Subject Headings terms and Emtree using “(Open Bankart OR Bankart surgery) (NOT arthroscopy NOT revision)” for English-language studies. We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

Results:

In total, 11 articles (10 with level 4 and 1 with level 3 evidence) including 563 patients (566 shoulders) were identified. The majority of patients were male (82%), the average age at the time of surgery was 27.4 years, and the mean follow-up was 11.5 years (range, 2.5-29 years). The most common functional score used was the Rowe score (95%) for the reported outcome measures, which showed good to excellent results (mean, 88.5 points). The overall recurrent instability rate, including dislocation and subluxation as a postoperative complication, was 8.5%. A total of 87% of patients were able to return to sport and work postoperatively. Overall, OA changes were reported in 33% of the patients, and the overall revision rate was 1%.

Conclusion:

Open Bankart repair exhibited favorable results, with a low postoperative instability rate. It is a reliable surgical procedure that allows high-demand patients to return to sport and work.

Glenoid track measurement using magnetic resonance imaging arthrography is predictive of recurrent instability following arthroscopic shoulder stabilisation

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to investigate medium-term survivorship following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for anterior glenohumeral instability. The secondary aim was to determine whether the pre-operative magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography glenoid track measurement predicted recurrent instability following ABR.

METHODS

Over a 9-year period (2008-2017), 215 patients underwent ABR. Median age was 26 years (IQR 22-32.5; range 14-77). There were 173 males (81%). 175 patients (81%) had available pre-operative MR arthrography, which was used to determine the presence of "off-track" bone loss. Retrospective analysis was undertaken to determine recurrence of instability at a median follow-up of 76 months (range 21-125 months). Survivorship analysis was undertaken using Kaplan-Meier methodology: the endpoints examined were repeat dislocation, revision stabilisation, and symptomatic instability.

RESULTS

56 patients (26%) presented with further instability, including 29 patients with recurrent dislocation and 15 patients required revision stabilisation. Cumulative incidence of instability was 10% at 1 year, 27% at 5 years and 28% at 7 years. No significant difference in instability was seen between men and women 7 years after stabilisation (19% vs 17%; p = 0.87). Age at time of surgery did not predict recurrence. "Off-track" lesions were identified in 29 patients (16.1%). The incidence of redislocation was significantly higher in these patients (24% vs 3%; p = 0.01; relative risk 7.2; 95% CI 2.45-20.5; p = 0.001). Recurrent instability without frank redislocation was also significantly higher in this group (60% vs 18%; RR 3.33, 95% CI 2.02-5.20; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has reported a significant rate of recurrent instability in longer-term follow-up after ABR. It has also identified pre-operative MR arthrography as an important predictor of recurrent instability, which may be used to risk stratify patients with anterior instability in a typical UK population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III (cohort study).

Complex Shoulder Girdle Stabilization Using Allograft Capsular Reconstruction and Pectoralis Major Transfer: A Case Report

CASE

A 21-year-old woman with a history of multiple failed surgical and conservative management for recurrent involuntary shoulder instability presented with 1-year history of shoulder pain. Physical examination demonstrated intractable static anterior glenohumeral instability, deficient capsular tissue, with reducible scapular winging secondary to long thoracic nerve palsy. Allograft capsular reconstruction and open split pectoralis major tendon transfer were performed to salvage shoulder motion and stabilize her shoulder girdle.

CONCLUSION

This report presents a novel repair option for intractable shoulder instability and scapular winging. Surgeons should recognize potential causes of shoulder instability and familiarize themselves with multiple stabilization techniques as potential salvage options before glenohumeral fusion.

Bankart Repair With Subscapularis Augmentation in Athletes With Shoulder Hyperlaxity

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that arthroscopic Bankart repair with associated arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) could be a valid surgical option in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability, in collision and contact sports athletes, affected by shoulder hyperlaxity.

METHODS

In total, 591 arthroscopic Bankart repairs plus ASA were performed in 6 shoulder centers from 2009 to 2017. Inclusion criteria were the following: collision and contact sports activities, recurrent anterior instability associated with hyperlaxity and glenoid bone loss (GBL) < 15%. Exclusion criteria were GBL > 15%, voluntary instability, multidirectional instability, pre-existing osteoarthritis and throwing athletes. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. Hyperlaxity was clinically evaluated according to Neer and Coudane-Walch tests. Before surgery, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanning. Pico area method was used to assess the percentage of GBL. Patients were operated on by 6 surgeons, and their functional outcomes were evaluated by 2 independent observers. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess results.

RESULTS

Overall, 397 patients with evidence of shoulder hyperlaxity (positive sulcus sign in ER1 position and Coudane-Walch test > 85°) met all inclusion criteria. The mean WOSI score was 321; the mean Rowe score rose from 68.5 to 92.5 (P = .037), and the ASES score rose from 71.5 to 97.4 (P = .041). Seven patients (1.6%) had atraumatic redislocation, and 9 patients (2.2%) had post-traumatic redislocation. At final follow-up the mean functional deficit of external rotation was 15° with the arm in adduction (ER1 position) and 10° in abduction (ER2 position).

CONCLUSIONS

The Bankart repair plus ASA has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for restoring joint stability in patients practicing collision and contact sports or affected by chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with GBL (<15%) and hyperlaxity, without compromising external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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

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

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.

Avaliação isocinética do ombro após procedimento cirúrgico de Bristow/Latarjet em atletas

Objectives  To evaluate the muscular strength of the internal (IR) and external (ER) rotators of the shoulder after Bristow/Latarjet surgery.

Methods  Cross-sectional study with 18 patients (36 shoulders). The isokinetic evaluation was performed using the Biodex 3 System Pro dynamometer (Biodex Medical System, Inc., Shirley, NY, USA). The athletic shoulder outcome rating scale (ASORS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) were applied.

Results  The values of peak torque and maximum work in concentric and eccentric mode on the non-operated shoulder were higher than on the operated side for both the IR and ER ( p  < 0.01). The conventional and functional balance between the ER and IR showed no differences between the operated and the non-operated side. When comparing patients with postoperative time < 1 year or 1 year, no differences were observed in peak torque values at 60°/s and 240°/s and maximum work at 60°/s and 240°/s of the IR to the operated shoulder. However, the peak torque values of 60°/s and 240°/s and maximum work at 60°/s and 240°/s of the ER were higher in subjects with postoperative time ≥ 1 year in all variables ( p  < 0.05).

Conclusions  There was a decrease in the strength of the IR and ER in the operated shoulder compared with the healthy shoulder. However, the conventional and functional balance was maintained.

Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior instability of the shoulder in patients aged thirty years or older

INTRODUCTION

Bankart repair is a popular treatment for anterior shoulder instability. However, long-term failure rates of arthroscopic Bankart repair remain higher than Latarjet procedures. The purpose of this study was to report long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients greater than 30 years old and analyze risk factors of failure following arthroscopic Bankart repair that are independent of younger age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 1999 and December 2003, 41 patients aged 30 years or older treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were evaluated. Outcome measures included pain (VAS), range of motion, post-operative Walch-Duplay, WOSII scores, complications, failure rate, and risk factors of failure. Failure was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation.

RESULTS

At a mean 12-year follow-up (range; 10-15 years), the failure rate of arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients aged 30 years and older was 37%. The mean post-operative Walch-Duplay score was significantly higher in patients who had no recurrence compared to those who had had recurrence of instability (100 versus 90, p=0.02). An ISIS score≥3 (p=0.02), a glenoid bone lesion (p=0.06), and a Hill-Sachs lesion>15% defect (p=0.001) were risk factors for recurrent instability. When considering a modified ISIS score that accounted for bony defects on the glenoid and humeral side, patients with an ISIS score <3 + no glenoid lesion + Hill-Sachs ≤ 15% had a recurrence rate of 0%.

CONCLUSION

The failure rate of arthroscopic Bankart repairs in patients over 30 was higher than previously reported. Specifically, patients with an ISIS >3 and bony glenoid defects and/or Hill-Sachs lesions > 15% may be at higher risk for recurrent instability following an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Alternative stabilization techniques may need to be considered for this subset of patients.

All-suture anchors versus metal suture anchors in the arthroscopic treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability: A comparison of mid-term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare metal suture anchors and all-suture anchors clinically and radiologically in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 67 patients (61 males, 6 females; mean age 26.0±5.8; range, 18 to 43 years) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between April 2009 and October 2016 were divided into two groups depending on the type of the suture anchor used in different periods. Group A comprised 32 patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair performed with metal suture anchors, and Group B comprised 35 patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair performed with all-suture anchors. The patients were clinically evaluated using Rowe scores, Constant scores, redislocation rates, and positive apprehension test rates. Radiographic evaluation was performed using the Samilson-Prieto classification to observe the development of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 41.1±10.4 (range, 30 to 60) months in Group A, and 39.6±9.4 (range, 28 to 60) months in Group B, with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.559). No significant difference was observed between Group A and Group B in terms of mean Rowe score (89.2±13.8 [range, 40 to 100] vs. 88.7±16.9 [range, 25 to 100]; p=0.895) or Constant score (87.2±8.9 [range, 48 to 96] vs. 86.9±9.0 [range, 46 to 96]; p=0.878), which were the clinical outcomes at the final follow-up examination. Postoperative redislocation rates (3.1% vs. 2.9%, p=1.0) and positive apprehension test rates (6.3% vs. 8.6%, p=1.0) were found to be similar in both groups. According to the Samilson-Prieto classification, there was no evidence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in any of the patients in either group.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory outcomes were obtained with the use of all-suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. All-suture anchors and metal suture anchors, have similar outcomes in the mid-term and all-suture anchors are a reliable and effective option for arthroscopic Bankart repair.

A comparative study on use of two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair

Objectives

This study aims to compare clinical results of repair using two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Patients and methods

Between July 2012 and December 2017, a total of 40 patients (38 males, 2 females; mean age: 31.6±8.1; range: 17 to 47 years) who underwent Bankart arthroscopic surgery and were followed for minimum two years were retrospectively analyzed. Group 1 (n=17) underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with two double-loaded suture anchors, while Group 2 (n=23) underwent repair with three double-loaded suture anchors. Clinical outcomes of the patients and recurrences were compared.

Results

At the final postoperative follow-up, a significant improvement was observed in the functional outcomes in all patients. No statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05) in the mean clinical scores of the Constant Shoulder Score between Group 1 (94.2±7.8) and Group 2 (95.4±4.1). There was no significant difference in the mean Rowe scores (Group 1: 95.6±4.6 vs. Group 2: 96.3±3.8, respectively) and external rotation loss (at neutral Group 1: 1.9o vs. Group 2: 2.2o, respectively). Three of our patients had recurrent dislocation during a major traumatic event (n=2 in Group 1 and n=1 in Group 2).

Conclusion

Our study results suggest that stability is not correlated with the use of either two versus three double-loaded suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repairs.

Sex differences in outcomes after arthroscopic bankart repair

Objectives

Risk factors for anterior shoulder dislocation include young age, contact activities and male sex. The influence of sex on patient-reported outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is unclear, with few studies reporting potential differences. This study’s purpose was to compare patient-reported outcomes of males and females following ABR.

Methods

Prospectively collected data was analysed for 281 patients (males: 206, females: 75) after ABR with preoperative, 1-year and 2-year follow-up responses. The Wilcoxon signed-rank and χ² tests, preoperative, 1 year and 2 year follow-up results were examined to determine differences of scores in males versus females.

Results

No statistically significant sex differences were observed in Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) Scores at 1-year or 2-year follow-up. Females had lower Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12) mental health subscores at 2-year follow-up (females: 52.3±9.0, males: 55.8±7.6, p=0.0016). Females were more likely to report that treatment had ‘exceeded expectations’ at 2-year follow-up regarding motion, strength, function and normal sports activities.

Conclusion

Results of study demonstrate that ABR has similar outcomes for both males and females. There were no statistically significant sex-related differences in SST, ASES, VAS or SANE scores following ABR. VR-12 mental health subscores showed a minimal difference at 2-year follow-up, with lower scores in females.

Level of evidence

Retrospective cohort study; level II.

Fracture Dislocation of the Anatomical Neck of the Proximal Humerus: Case Report and Literature Review

Fractures of the anatomical neck of the humerus are an extremely rare pathological entity in the field of orthopedic surgery. One of the most feared complications associated with anatomical neck fracture of the humerus is avascular necrosis (AVN). The literature does not contain clear, evidence-based guidelines for the surgical management. This case report highlights the case of a 33-year-old male patient who presented with anatomical neck humerus fracture dislocation after a snowboarding accident. Computed tomography showed a comminuted displaced fracture involving the right humeral neck associated with anterior dislocation of the right shoulder. A small bony fragment adjacent to the glenoid posteriorly was also revealed. The patient was treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). After 3 years of follow-up, the patient is fully recovered with a normal range of motion of his right shoulder joint. The patient did not show any signs of AVN of the humeral head throughout the course of the 3-year follow-up. Anatomical neck fractures of the humerus are uncommon injuries in the literature. Due to the poor vascularization and the absence of attachment to soft tissue, there is a significantly high risk of AVN associated with fractures of the anatomical neck of the humerus. The patient presented in our report was treated with ORIF since it allows preservation of the humeral head.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

Although the frequency of arthroscopic revision surgery is increasing in patients with recurrent dislocation after a primary shoulder stabilization, the literature describing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair has been limited. Preferred reporting items for systematic meta-analyses guidelines were followed by utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Keywords included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, stabilization, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Quality assessments were performed with criteria from the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). A total of 14 articles were included in this analysis. The mean MINORS score was 12.43. A total of 339 shoulders (337 patients) were included (281 males and 56 females). The mean follow-up period was 36.7 months. Primary surgeries were as follows: arthroscopic procedures (n = 172, 50.7%), open procedure (n = 87, 25.7%), and unknown (n = 80, 23.6%). The mean rate of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 15.3% (n = 52), and an additional re-revision procedure was needed in 6.5% of cases (n = 22). Overall, there were 18.0% (n = 61) of complications reported. This systematic review suggests that arthroscopic revision Bankart repair can lead to an improvement in functional outcomes and reasonable patient satisfaction with proper patient selection.

Arthroscopic Latarjet for Shoulder Instability

Arthroscopic Latarjet is a relatively new, but viable option for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopic Latarjet has the advantage of faster recovery, reduced stiffness, identification of additional shoulder pathology, and improved cosmesis when compared with open Latarjet. By the majority of clinical and radiographic parameters, arthroscopic Latarjet produces equivalent outcomes compared with open Latarjet. A relatively substantial learning curve for arthroscopic Latarjet exists at about 25 cases; however, multiple studies have demonstrated comparable outcomes and surgical time after the learning curve.

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

Background

An arthroscopic Bankart operation is the most common operative procedure to treat shoulder instability. In case of recurrence, both Bankart and Latarjet procedures are used as revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the re-recurrence rate of instability and clinical results after arthroscopic revision Bankart and open revision Latarjet procedures following failed primary arthroscopic Bankart operations.

Methods

Consecutive patients operatively treated for shoulder instability at Turku University Hospital between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed. Patients who underwent a primary arthroscopic Bankart operation followed by a recurrence of instability and underwent a subsequent arthroscopic Bankart or open Latarjet revision operation with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were called in for a follow-up evaluation. The re-recurrence of instability, Subjective Shoulder Value, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index were assessed.

Results

Of 69 patients, 48 (dropout rate, 30%) were available for follow-up. Recurrent instability symptoms occurred in 13 patients (43%) after the revision Bankart procedure and none after the revision Latarjet procedure. A statistically and clinically significant difference in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index was found between the patients after the revision Bankart and revision Latarjet operations (68% and 88%, respectively; P = .0166).

Conclusions

The redislocation rate after an arthroscopic revision Bankart operation is high. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes remain poor after a revision Bankart procedure compared with a revision Latarjet operation. We propose that in cases of recurring instability after a failed primary Bankart operation, an open Latarjet revision should be considered.

Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: Early Postsurgical Complications for Primary Coracoid Transfer Versus Revision Coracoid Transfer After Failed Prior Stabilization

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure (coracoid transfer) is often used to successfully treat failed instability procedures. However, given the reported increased complication rates in primary Latarjet surgery, there is a heightened concern for complications in performing the Latarjet procedure as revision surgery.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the early outcomes and complications of the Latarjet procedure as primary surgery compared with revision surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 157 patients were included and retrospectively reviewed: 103 patients in the revision group and 54 patients in the primary group. Patients were evaluated by physical examination findings as well as by documentation of complications and reoperations extracted from their electronic medical records.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 7.8 ± 11.0 months for the primary group and 7.0 ± 13.2 months for the revision group. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates between the primary and revision groups (16.7% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = .139). The complication rate was significantly higher in patients in the revision group who had undergone a prior open procedure compared with those who had undergone only arthroscopic procedures (30.0% vs 4.1%, respectively; P < .001). Of those patients who sustained a complication, 7 of the 9 underwent a reoperation in the primary group (13.0%), and 7 of the 9 did so in the revision group (6.8%); the risk of reoperations was not different between groups (P = .198). There were 4 patients in the primary group (7.4%) and 5 patients in the revision group (4.9%) who experienced recurrent dislocations during the follow-up period (P = .513). There was no difference in postoperative range of motion.

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure is a reasonable option for the treatment of failed arthroscopic instability repair with an early complication rate similar to that found in primary Latarjet surgery.

Revision anterior glenohumeral instability: is arthroscopic treatment an option?

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent revision surgery for shoulder instability, including both revision arthroscopic repair and Latarjet.

Methods

This study included patients who underwent revision of a prior arthroscopic labral repair to arthroscopic labral repair or Latarjet at our institution from 2012 to 2017. After collection of preoperative demographic data, preoperative 3-dimensional imaging was reviewed to determine percent glenoid bone loss (%GBL) and to determine whether each shoulder was on-track or off-track. Patients were contacted to obtain postoperative patient-reported outcome metrics including visual analog scale pain, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and instability recurrence (full dislocation, subluxation, or subjective apprehension) data at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.

Results

Of 62 patients who met criteria, 45 patients were able to be contacted. Of them, 21 underwent revision arthroscopy and 24 underwent a Latarjet procedure. In the revision arthroscopy group, 5 of 15 had %GBL >20% and 4 of 21 were contact athletes. In the Latarjet group, 11 of 22 had %GBL >20% and 5 of 24 were contact athletes. Of 21 revision arthroscopy patients, 8 underwent concomitant remplissage. Eight of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 7 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported instability postoperatively. Three of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 2 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported full dislocations postoperatively. Zero patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 1 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group underwent reoperation.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that both revision Latarjet and arthroscopic stabilization can be of benefit in select circumstances. However, in revision settings, postoperative instability symptoms are common with both procedures.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair following traumatic recurrent shoulder dislocation: A prospective review of 30 cases

BACKGROUND

Literature on outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair at the intervening time intervals in traumatic recurrent dislocation of shoulder joint is limited.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A prospective review of 30 shoulders, aged 20-40 years with clinically and magnetic resonance imaging established findings that were treated with primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Outcomes were evaluated using Rowe score and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scoring system.

RESULTS

The mean age was 26.40 years. All patients had definite trauma history. Average number of dislocation was 13.77 + 18.435 (range: 3-100). Time duration from first dislocation to surgery was an average of 4.80 + 3.576 years. The average size of the lesion was approximately 31% of the glenoid circumference. The number of suture anchors used for fixation did not correlate significantly with any of the scores. The mean Rowe and UCLA scores were 94.16 ± 9.7 and 33.83 ± 3.32, respectively, at final follow-up. The average duration of hospital stay was 7 days. Of the 30 patients, 2 (6.66%) had dislocation events post-operatively. Returns to pre-injury level were available for 27 (90%) of 30 patients. Multivariate analysis of independent Variables: age; side and number of dislocations, time to surgery, duration of surgery, size of lesion, number of anchors, and concurrent Hill-Sachs lesion, shown to have no significant relationship to outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair is an effective and safe technique for treating anterior glenohumeral instability in patients with recurrent traumatic shoulder dislocation.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Bankart Repairs in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of the Association Between Publication Date and Postoperative Recurrent Instability in Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

To systematically review the results of systematic studies regarding open versus arthroscopic Bankart repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability and quantitatively analyze the effect of primary-literature publication dates on reported outcomes in these systematic studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to identify systematic studies reporting outcomes of both arthroscopic and open Bankart repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patient-reported outcome measures, recurrent instability rates, definitions of instability, and procedure types reported by included study characteristics were qualitatively analyzed. Correlation coefficient analyses were performed to investigate if a systematic study's proportion of included primary literature published after 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 affected that study's reported mean difference in instability recurrence between open and arthroscopic procedures. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of 130 identified articles, 6 met the inclusion criteria. Patient-reported outcome measures were poorly reported. Among mean differences in instability recurrence rates, the results were indeterminate: Although 5 studies reported arthroscopic surgical procedures as having a higher recurrence rate, only 1 reported a statistically significant difference. Within the 5 included systematic reviews reporting the number of included studies, 37 of 56 observations were published after 2000. The proportion of studies published after 2000 (Pearson r = 0.88, P = .052) was positively associated with differences in instability recurrence rates between open and arthroscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic studies that included newer studies (published after 2000) were associated with more favorable arthroscopic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Outcomes of the Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Chronic Anterior Shoulder Instability: Patients With Prior Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Primary Cases

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether results differ between a Latarjet procedure performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair and one performed as the primary operation.

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative outcomes of the Latarjet procedure when performed as primary surgery and as revision for a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective comparative case-cohort analysis was performed for all patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on if the Latarjet procedure was performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (group 1) or as the first operation (group 2). Outcome measures included recurrent instability, reoperation rates, complications, pain, Walch-Duplay scores, and Simple Shoulder Test.

RESULTS

A total of 308 patients were eligible for participation in the study; 72 (23.4%) did not answer and were considered lost to follow-up, leaving 236 patients available for analysis. Mean follow-up was 3.4 ± 0.8 years. There were 20 patients in group 1 and 216 in group 2. Despite similar rates of recurrent instability (5.0% in group 1 vs 2.3% in group 2; P = .5) and revision surgery (0% in group 1 vs 6.5% in group 2; P = .3), group 1 demonstrated significantly worse pain scores (2.56 ± 2.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.7; P = .01) and patient-reported outcomes (Walch-Duplay: 52 ± 25.1 vs 72.2 ± 25.0; P = .0007; Simple Shoulder Test: 9.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.7 ± 1.9; P = .001) when compared with those patients undergoing primary Latarjet procedures.

CONCLUSION

Functional outcome scores and postoperative pain are significantly worse in patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair when compared with patients undergoing primary Latarjet. The assumption that a failed a Bankart repair can be revised by a Latarjet with a similar result to a primary Latarjet appears to be incorrect. Surgeons should consider these findings when deciding on the optimal surgical procedure for recurrent shoulder instability.

Inter-surgeon variability in the identification of clock face landmarks when placing suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of surgeons in utilizing the clock face method for anchor placement has never been investigated. Our hypothesis was that shoulder arthroscopy surgeons would be able to place suture anchors at predetermined positions with accuracy and reliability.

METHODS

Ten cadaveric shoulders were used. Five fellowship-trained shoulder arthroscopy surgeons were directed to place a suture anchor at 3:30, 4:30, and 5:30 clock in two shoulders each. The position of the anchors was determined with computed tomography. The accuracy of placement was calculated and data analyzed with one-way analysis of variance. The intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy was 57%. The accuracy of anchor placement at the 3:30 position was 40% (average position 2:24 o'clock), it was 50% at the 4:30 position (average position 3:42 o'clock) and 80% at the 5:30 position (average position 5:03 o'clock). No statistical difference in accuracy between the placement of the superior, middle, and inferior anchors (p = 0.145) was seen. The intraclass correlation coefficient for inter-surgeon reliability was 0.4 (fair) while the intraclass correlation coefficient for intra-surgeon reliability was 0.6 (moderate).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study suggest a moderate degree of accuracy and fair to moderate inter- and intra-surgeon reliability when using the clock face system to guide anchor placement.

Reliability of the Instability Severity Index Score as a Predictor of Recurrence after Arthroscopic Anterior Capsulolabral Reconstruction: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Background

Although the instability severity index score (ISIS) is widely used to predict recurrence after arthroscopic anterior instability surgery, its reliability, especially on the weightings and cutoff values, is questionable. The goal of the current retrospective study was to investigate recurrence after arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction to evaluate whether each domain of the ISIS has the appropriate predictive power for recurrence by using logistic regression analyses with odds ratios (ORs).

Methods

This study included 120 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction between 2004 and 2016. We retrospectively reviewed patients' preoperative history and radiographs, postoperative recurrence or sensation of instability, and risk factors related to the ISIS. The mean postoperative follow-up was 27.6 months (range, 12 to 96 months; median, 21 months). Twenty-six patients with recurrence or positive apprehension were classified as the recurrence group; 94 patients without any symptoms were classified as the non-recurrence group. Logistic regression analyses with ORs were used to verify the utility of each domain of the ISIS for predicting recurrence.

Results

The mean ISIS did not differ significantly between the recurrence and non-recurrence groups (4.3 ± 1.8 vs. 3.4 ± 2.1 points; p = 0.063). Among the domains of ISIS, factors related to bone defects, the presence of a Hill-Sachs lesion and glenoid bone loss had the lowest ORs (0.77 and 0.38, respectively).

Conclusions

Not all ISIS domains accurately predicted recurrence after arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction. The ISIS may not be a proper reference for determining Latarjet procedure in patients with anterior shoulder instability.

Preoperative corticosteroid joint injections within 2 weeks of shoulder arthroscopies increase postoperative infection risk

BACKGROUND

There is currently no consensus regarding the safe timing interval between corticosteroid shoulder injections and future shoulder arthroscopies. Our study assessed the relationship between preoperative corticosteroid injection timing and shoulder arthroscopy infectious outcomes.

METHODS

We used an insurance database to identify and sort all shoulder arthroscopy patients by corticosteroid shoulder injection history within 6 months before surgery. Patients who received injections were stratified by the timing of their most recent preoperative injection. The overall infection rate and rate of severe infections requiring treatment through intravenous antibiotics or surgical débridement in the 6-month postoperative period were compared using χ² tests between the injection cohorts and a control group of patients defined as those with no injection history.

RESULTS

We identified 50,478 shoulder arthroscopy patients, of whom 4115 received injections in the 6-month preoperative period. We found a significant increase in both the overall infection rate (P < .0001) and severe infection rate (P < .0001) in patients who received injections within 2 weeks before surgery (n = 79; 8.86% and 6.33%, respectively) compared with those who received no injections in the 6-month preoperative period (n = 46,363; 1.56% and 0.55%, respectively). No other significant differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in patients who have received corticosteroid injections, shoulder arthroscopic procedures may be safely performed after at least 2 weeks has passed since the most recent injection to minimize the risk of postoperative infection. In addition, procedures performed within 2 weeks of an injection may increase the risk of postoperative infection.

Analysis of glenohumeral morphological factors for anterior shoulder instability and rotator cuff tear by magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there are glenohumeral morphological differences between normal population, glenohumeral instability, and rotator cuff pathology.

METHOD

In this study, shoulder magnetic resonance (MR) images of 150 patients were evaluated. Patients included in the study were studied in three groups of 50 individuals: patients with anterior shoulder instability in group 1, patients with rotator cuff tear in group 2, and control subjects without shoulder pathology in group 3.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between groups in evaluations for glenoid version, glenoid coronal height, glenoid coronal diameter, humeral axial and coronal diameters, and coracohumeral interval distances. Significant differences were observed between groups 2 and 3 in glenoid axial diameter, glenoid coronal height, glenoid depth, humeral coronal diameter, and coracohumeral distances.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained in this study suggest that glenoid version, glenoid coronal height and diameter, humeral diameter, and coracohumeral interval parameters in glenohumeral morphology-related parameters in patients with anterior instability are different from those of normal population and patients with rotator cuff pathology. In cases where there is a clinically difficult diagnosis, these radiological measurements will be helpful to clinicians in diagnosis and treatment planning, especially in cases of treatment-resistant cases.

Editorial Commentary: Can Orthopaedic Surgeons Agree on Choice of Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability Based on Risk Factors? Personal and Training Biases Confound Our Surgical Decision Making

Diagnosing and treating anterior shoulder instability can be a challenging clinical problem. Although operative management of shoulder instability has been reported to result in good to excellent functional outcomes, there is still controversy regarding the timing of surgery, how to treat first-time dislocations, and which surgical procedures to use. Patient-specific factors including age, sex, activity level, types of sport, and other comorbidities will influence treatment. In addition, the unique pathology in the shoulder, including presence and degree of bone loss, and concomitant soft tissue pathology will influence the choice of procedures for anterior stabilization. Surgeon-specific factors such as surgeon's preference, which procedure the surgeon is comfortable with, and training and experience are also important. Finally, the financial burden of the procedure cannot be overlooked. With so many factors playing a role in a surgeon's treatment algorithm, a thorough preoperative assessment is important in guiding decision making. Whether preoperative consideration of the risk factors can guide orthopaedic surgeons to choose the correct procedure and eventually be translated into improved clinical outcomes is still debatable. Alongside careful analysis of the patient's relevant history, the surgeon must also deal with development of new techniques, new implants, and economic factors.

Early Outcomes and Perioperative Complications of the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The arthroscopic Latarjet-Bristow procedure is emerging as a reliable alternative to the open procedure. The reduced soft tissue damage with potential advantages of early pain control and functional recovery is attractive. However, the operation is technically more demanding, and there are concerns regarding the potential for increased recurrence and complication rates.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the available literature focusing on the reported functional outcomes and complications of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and compare them with the open procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review was performed with the keywords "arthroscopy," "arthroscopic," "Latarjet," and "Bristow," with no limit regarding the year of publication. The review was limited to the English-language articles, and each article was evaluated with a modified MINORS (methodological index for nonrandomized studies) scoring system.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, 813 patients met inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 24.5 months. The mean Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores were 89.6 and 90.2, respectively. The overall complication rate was 16.5%; intraoperative conversion to open surgery, 2%; recurrence, 2.5%; and revision surgery, 5.6%. When only comparative studies were considered, the overall complication rates were 23.7% (arthroscopically) and 15.3% (open). The recurrence and revision surgery rates were 6.5% and 5.7% in the study group, while the corresponding values in the control group were 4% and 2.9%. The mean MINORS score was 14.5 (11.6 for noncomparative studies and 19 for comparative studies).

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Latarjet-Bristow procedure is reliable. Outcomes are satisfactory, with less pain and faster recovery in the first postoperative week. However, the procedure is technically demanding, and higher rates of complications and reoperations should be expected. Finally, the arthroscopic operation is much more expensive in terms of implanted materials than the open procedure.

Arthroscopic soft tissue reconstruction in anterior shoulder instability

Anterior glenohumeral instability remains a difficult problem in the athletic and working patient populations. Treatment strategies are variable and range from nonoperative approaches incorporating immobilization and rehabilitation to surgical management. Surgical decision-making can be challenging, especially with a high-level patient who wishes to return to high-demand activities. Operative options range from open soft tissue stabilization to arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization, with both open and arthroscopic options for bony reconstruction in the setting of clinically significant anterior glenoid bone loss. In all cases, understanding appropriate indications and utilizing sound surgical techniques are critical for achieving a successful result. For the majority of patients with anterior shoulder instability, arthroscopic soft tissue reconstruction with suture anchors is a successful, minimally invasive approach that results in a stable shoulder with excellent outcomes and low complication rates.

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

BACKGROUND

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) score is a preoperative risk stratification tool used to identify patients at heightened risk of recurrent anterior instability after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure. The primary objective of this study was to validate the utility of the ISI score in predicting failure of primary arthroscopic Bankart surgery in an active-duty military population.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed to compare all military service members undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repairs at a single military treatment facility between 2007 and 2014. The primary outcome of interest was surgical failure due to recurrent instability. The ISI framework was used to stratify each patient for recurrence, and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the composite ISI score and individual domains between patients with and patients without failed Bankart repairs.

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients were identified, with a mean patient age of 26.8 years (range, 19-47 years), among whom 42 patients (32%) were identified as having a higher-demand military occupation. At a minimum 2-year follow-up, 34 patients (26%) sustained recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The mean ISI score of patients in the failed Bankart repair group was not statistically different than that of patients with a successful repair (3.41 vs 3.5, P = .74), and no individual ISI domains were identified as independent risk factors for subsequent surgical failure or revision stabilization.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the findings of previous validation studies, the composite ISI score and its individual risk factors were not predictive of subsequent surgical failure after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in an active military population.

Is the Instability Severity Index Score a Valid Tool for Predicting Failure After Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability?

PURPOSE

To assess the validity of the Instability Severity Index Score in predicting the rate of recurrence of dislocation in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were recurrent anterior traumatic glenohumeral instability and a minimum follow-up of 5 years. According to the preoperative Instability Severity Index Score, patients were divided into the following groups: ≤3 points (A), 4 to 6 points (B), and >6 points (C). The recurrence rate was determined by telephone interviews. The estimated overall rate of success at 5 years was defined as the estimated overall percentage of patients free of recurrence at 5 years.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy patients (572 men and 98 women) were included. The average age was 27 years (range, 18 to 39 years) at the time of surgery. One hundred fourteen of 670 patients had a recurrence of instability, with an overall recurrence rate of 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.2%-19.9%). The Instability Severity Index Score had a significant association with recurrence. Compared with patients in group A, those in group B had double the risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.43, 95% CI 1.38-4.28, P = .002), and patients in group C a 9 times greater risk of recurrence (HR = 9.42, 95% CI 5.20-17.7, P < .001). The estimated overall rate of success at 5 years was 84.8% (95% CI 81.8-87.3). The rate of success with an Instability Severity Index Score ≤3 points was 93.7% (95% CI 89.6-96.2), but it dropped to 85.7% (95% CI 81.7-88.9) in those with an Instability Severity Index Score of 4 to 6 points and became 54.6% (95% CI 42.8-64.9) in those with an Instability Severity Index Score >6 points. On multivariable analysis, the Instability Severity Index Score was found to significantly affect the risk of recurrence, corrected by type of sport and glenoid bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The Instability Severity Index Score is a validated tool with which to assess the recurrence rate of dislocation after arthroscopic surgery in patients with shoulder instability. Arthroscopic stabilization in patients with an Instability Severity Index Score ≤3 is associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrence of glenohumeral instability compared with that in patients with an Instability Severity Index Score >3 points.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, case-control study.

Editorial Commentary: Which Patients Are Likely to Undergo Redislocation After an Arthroscopic Bankart Repair? Preoperative Instability Severity Index Scoring Over 3 Points-The Game Is Over!

Risk factors for recurrent instability are present and identifiable preoperatively and can be incorporated into a severity scoring system to help with patient selection. The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score is a tool used to preoperatively identify patients at risk of failure after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. This 10-point score is also designed to help guide the treating surgeon's decision on whether a soft-tissue stabilization or bone block augmentation procedure is indicated. The ISI scoring system has been criticized for its lack of generalizability outside of the French health care system. However, evidence has emerged establishing the ISI Score as a valuable tool with excellent external validity. The ISI scoring system, based on factors derived from a preoperative questionnaire, physical examination, and imaging studies, is helpful to distinguish between patients who will benefit from an arthroscopic Bankart procedure and those who will not. The higher the score, the higher the risk of recurrence of instability. Patients with an ISI Score of 3 points or less may attain very good results with an arthroscopic Bankart procedure compared with patients with an ISI Score of more than 3 points. Performing this procedure in patients with an ISI Score of more than 6 points leads to an increased risk of recurrence (≥50%) within 5 years and is totally inacceptable. We believe that the information gained from this scoring system will help surgeons in their daily practice to not only decide the right procedure for the right patient but also inform their patients preoperatively of the risks and benefits of an arthroscopic Bankart procedure. As such, the ISI Score is an important strategic tool for shoulder surgeons.

10 Years of Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: Outcome and Complications

BACKGROUND

The treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability with a Bankart repair combined with a capsular plication is a frequently used arthroscopic technique. Latarjet created an open bone block procedure in 1954 for the treatment of anteroinferior glenohumeral instability. This procedure has been further developed by Lafosse in 2003 for arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome and complications of the latter procedure, most notably infection rate and nerve damage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

132 shoulders (106 males/19 females, 68 right/64 left) were included in this retrospective study. Patients were included if treatment was performed for anterior instability and if the patient's instability severity index score was at least 4, or if a revision procedure was performed after a prior unsuccessful arthroscopic or open capsule and labral repair. Treatment included the arthroscopic transfer of the coracoid process for the anterior stabilization of the shoulder joint. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score were evaluated postoperatively in 76 patients and compared with the results found in the literature. Mean followup was 20.1 [±14.09] months.

RESULTS

The rate of recurrent glenohumeral instability which needed revision surgery after the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure was 6.1% (n = 8). There were no severe neurovascular complications seen in our cohort. In 32 cases, re-operation was performed due to subjective discomfort because of screw impingement or postoperative shoulder stiffness.

CONCLUSION

The all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure developed by Lafosse is a valid and reliable method for the treatment of shoulder instability. Our favorable results indicating that this procedure can prevent chronic shoulder luxation are repeatable, and the rate of postoperative recurrence is low.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Involving Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background:

Arthroscopic repair is gaining popularity over open repair for the treatment of bankart lesions. The study aims to evaluate the outcome of arthroscopic repair with open repair in randomised controlled trials conducted comparing the two techniques.

Methods:

We searched the Cochrane library, PubMed and EMBASE up to December 2017 for clinical trials comparing the outcomes of arthroscopic bankart repair with open bankart repair. We used fixed or random effects model depending upon heterogenicity. Dichotomous variables were presented as Risk Ratios (RRs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs), and continuous data were measured as measured differences with 95% CIs.

Result:

Five studies were included, with sample size ranging from 42 to 196. Fixed effect analysis showed that the shoulder was more stable in open repair (RR=0.897, 95% CI: 0.821 to 0.980, P= 0.94) but the loss of external rotation at shoulder joint was also higher in those had open repair (RR=0.325, SMD=-0.411, 95% CI: -1.229 to 0.407). The functional outcome assessed by Rowe score was better in open repair (P=0.325). The operative time was lesser in arthroscopic repair but was not statistically significant (P=0.085).

Conclusion:

Our meta-analysis showed that the use of arthroscopic repair though offers better shoulder movement but the open repair is superior in terms of shoulder stability.

Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review and compare treatments (1) after primary traumatic shoulder dislocation aimed at minimising the risk of chronic shoulder instability and (2) for chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability.

DESIGN

Intervention systematic review with random effects network meta-analysis and direct comparison meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, DARE, HTA, NHSEED, Web of Science) and reference lists were searched from inception to 15 January 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials comparing any interventions either after a first-time, traumatic shoulder dislocation or chronic post-traumatic shoulder instability, with a shoulder instability, function or quality of life outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomised controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting that labrum repair reduced the risk of future shoulder dislocation (relative risk 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.8, p=0.026), and that with non-surgical management 47% of patients did not experience shoulder redislocation. Very low to low-quality evidence suggested no benefit of immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation. There was low-quality evidence that an open procedure was superior to arthroscopic surgery for preventing shoulder redislocations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-quality evidence that half of the patients managed with physiotherapy after a first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation did not experience recurrent shoulder dislocations. If chronic instability develops, surgery could be considered. There was no evidence regarding the effectiveness of surgical management for post-traumatic chronic shoulder instability.

Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Quantity of the Current Literature for Surgical Treatment

Background

Anterior shoulder instability is the most common sequela of shoulder dislocation and can result in repeated dislocations or subluxation of the glenohumeral joint. Anterior shoulder instability can be treated conservatively or surgically with several procedures.

Purpose

To date, arthroscopic Bankart is the most common surgical procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. No previous studies have compared all anterior shoulder surgical procedures. In this study, the authors performed a systematic review of journal articles describing all surgical procedures for anterior shoulder instability to determine the scientific evidence and level of recommendation.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Method

A comprehensive literature search was conducted (July 19, 2016) with 4 reputed databases: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane databases, and Web of Science. The articles found in the literature search were screened by 2 reviewers on the basis of their titles, abstracts, and full text. Data were extracted from relevant studies, and potentially relevant records were selected for full-text review. Included articles were classified according to their scientific quality (level of evidence, 1-5). The studies were then combined for each surgical procedure, and a grade of recommendation was assigned for each procedure: grade A, treatment recommendation based on level 1 evidence studies; B, based on level 2 or 3 evidence studies; C, based on level 4 or 5 evidence and could represent conflicting results; or I, insufficient evidence to recommend a treatment. As such, the grade of recommendation provides a summary score for the quality and quantity of available literature to support the surgical procedures reviewed here.

Results

The systematic literature review generated 11,281 articles. After screening, 655 articles were included. Results revealed 31 surgical procedures for shoulder instability following dislocation: 10 surgical procedures were given an A or B recommendation; 11, a C recommendation; and 10, an I recommendation.

Conclusion

This review identified many surgical procedures to treat anterior shoulder instability. Ten of these surgical procedures had an abundant amount of published articles to describe their safety and efficacy. Arthroscopic Bankart and open Bankart were the most commonly reported procedures that cite satisfactory postoperative outcomes and limited complications. Publications on the other surgical procedures were less common. Surgeons should be careful when recommending surgery, and they should choose the appropriate surgical procedure based on evidence-based literature.

Latarjet procedure versus open capsuloplasty in traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: long-term clinical and functional results

PURPOSE

To compare the results of two different open surgical techniques (open capsuloplasty and Bristow-Latarjet procedure) at a mid- to long-term follow-up (6 years) in patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients (73 shoulders, 48 males; 25 females) fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were classified as group A if operated on with a Bristow-Latarjet procedure (40 patients, 24 males; 16 females) or group B if operated on with an open capsuloplasty (33 patients, 24 males; 9 females). All patients were followed up with physical examination and functional evaluation scores (UCLA, ROWE and WOSI).

RESULTS

In group A, no further episodes of dislocation or subluxation were reported; in group B, one patient (3.3%) reported a new episode of anterior dislocation as a result of a new trauma. No statistical difference in regard of new episodes of shoulder dislocation was found between the two groups (p > 0.05). At physical examination, two patients (5%) of group A and four patients of group B (13.3%) showed a positive apprehension test (p > 0.05); anterior drawer test was positive in six patients (15%) of group A and in nine patients (30%) of group B (p > 0.05). Statistical analysis showed better external rotation in group A (Latarjet group) than in group B. (p = 0.0176). No statistical differences were detected in regard to the scale scores (UCLA, WOSI, Rowe) (p > 0.05). Regarding the return to sport, 29 patients (72.5%) of group A and 18 patients (60%) of group B reported they resumed the same sports activity at the same pre-operative level (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Open capsuloplasty and Bristow-Latarjet procedure are both validated surgical techniques for the treatment of recurrent shoulder anterior instability. We found no statistical difference in terms of recurrent dislocation rates, clinical shoulder stability tests, and scoring scales. The rate of patients returning to sport was similar after both techniques. However, patients with open capsuloplasty reported a significantly lower recovery of external rotation than patients operated via the Latarjet procedure.

Recurrence After Arthroscopic Labral Repair for Traumatic Anterior Instability in Adolescent Rugby and Contact Athletes

BACKGROUND

Traumatic glenohumeral dislocation of the shoulder is one of the most common shoulder injuries, especially among adolescent athletes. The treatment of instability for young athletes continues to be controversial owing to high recurrence rates.

PURPOSE

To investigate the recurrence rate of shoulder instability after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for adolescent contact and collision athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients aged <18 years underwent an arthroscopic labral repair over a 5-year period. The mean ± SD age of the cohort was 16.3 ± 0.9 years (range, 14-17 years) and consisted of 1 female and 66 males. All patients were contact athletes, with 62 of 67 playing rugby. Demographic, clinical, and intraoperative data for all patients with shoulder instability were recorded in our database. Recurrence rates were recorded and relative risks calculated.

RESULTS

At a follow-up of 33 ± 20 months, 34 of 67 patients had recurrent instability for an overall recurrence rate of 51% among adolescent contact athletes after arthroscopic labral repair surgery. The mean time to recurrence was 68.1 ± 45.3 weeks. All recurrences occurred as a result of a further sporting injury. Relative risk analysis demonstrated that athletes aged <16 years had 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-2.1) times the risk of developing a further instability episode as compared with athletes aged ≥16 years at the time of index surgery ( P = .0002). The recurrence rate among adolescent athletes after bony Bankart repairs was 57.9% versus 47.9% for soft tissue labral repairs ( P = .4698). The incidence of Hill-Sachs lesions ( P = .0002) and bony Bankart lesions ( P = .009) among adolescent athletes was significantly higher than among adult controls ( P = .002). The presence of bone loss did not lead to a significant increase in recurrence rate over and above the effect of age.

CONCLUSION

Adolescent contact athletes undergoing arthroscopic labral repair have an overall recurrence rate of 51%. Rugby players who undergo primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization aged <16 years have 2.2 times the risk of developing a further instability episode when compared with athletes aged ≥16 years at the time of index surgery, with a recurrence rate of 93%.

Risk Factors for Recurrence of Anterior-Inferior Instability of the Shoulder After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients Younger Than 30 Years

PURPOSE

To identify the risk factors for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair and evaluate the recurrence rate and functional outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients with anterior-inferior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2008 and 2014. Patients below 30 years of age who were available for follow-up at least for 2 years were sorted into 2 groups according to the presence of recurrent instability. Furthermore, statistical analysis by binary logistic regression analysis included the significance of various risk factors including gender, demographic factors, number of preoperative dislocations, time interval between the first dislocation and the surgery (shorter than 6 months or not), generalized hyperlaxity, concomitant injury, bony Bankart, and off-track lesion. The functional outcomes were assessed with the Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores.

RESULTS

A total of 170 shoulders were included (without-recurrence group: 138, recurrent group: 32). The overall postoperative recurrent instability rate was 18.8%. SLAP repair, interval closure, and capsular plication were performed when necessary. However, these additional procedures were not influenced by recurrence (P = .37). The 2 groups showed significant differences in the number of preoperative dislocations (P = .048; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2-5 times, 6.41; more than 5 times, 8.77), time interval between the first dislocation and surgery (P = .003, adjusted OR 5.62), and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (P = .04, adjusted OR 4.31). There was significant improvement in the mean Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores at 2 years postoperatively (P < .001 in both cases), but the mean scores were lower in the group with recurrence than in the group without (P = .021 and .014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results suggest that surgery within 6 months of the first dislocation should be considered, with meticulous attention in patients with a high number of preoperative dislocations or off-track Hill-Sachs lesions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Editorial Commentary: Is It Time to Take a Stand? When Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Is No Longer a Viable Option for Anterior Shoulder Instability

Recurrent anterior instability remains a challenging pathology to treat effectively. Arthroscopic Bankart repair, with its low invasiveness and complication rates, is readily the first, as well as most commonly, used procedure. However, some outcomes studies have reported an unacceptably high failure rate. As such, the ideal candidate for an arthroscopic repair has yet to be fully defined, mainly because of the multiple risk factors for failure after arthroscopic instability repair. Among those factors, recurrence of an instability event is clearly a risk factor for worse outcomes after arthroscopic instability repair. This may be due to an association between recurrent instability and an increase in glenoid bone loss, humeral bone loss, and more extensive labral tears, as well as more capsular, ligamentous, and rotator cuff injuries. Patients who present with 2 preoperative dislocations and a duration of instability symptoms of more than 6 months, as well as off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, may not be ideal candidates for arthroscopic instability repair. There is a "cost" to waiting on surgery after a first dislocation.

Risk Factors for Failure of Arthroscopic Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization

BACKGROUND

Recurrent anterior instability following a failed Bankart repair in the shoulder represents a challenging clinical scenario. Few studies have examined the role of arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization as a treatment option in these cases. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization for patients with recurrent instability after a failed index procedure.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients underwent arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization after a failed index (open or arthroscopic) stabilization procedure. Sixty-five patients with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included in this study. The mean age at the time of revision surgery was 26 years (range, 15 to 57 years). The rate of recurrent instability and risk factors for failure were evaluated; the mean duration of follow-up was 4.7 years (range, 2 to 10.8 years). Glenoid and humeral bone loss were quantitatively assessed using preoperative T1-weighted magnetic resonance arthrograms to determine if the lesions were on-track or off-track.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (42%) of the patients experienced recurrent instability at a mean of 2.3 years after arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization. On multivariate analysis, the presence of an off-track lesion, an age of <22 years, and ligamentous laxity were independent predictors of recurrence (p = 0.022, 0.028, and 0.031, respectively). Among a cohort with these risk factors excluded, the failure rate was 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic revision anterior stabilization is associated with a high rate of recurrent instability, and patient selection is of critical importance in order to minimize recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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