Arthroscopic Osseous Bankart Repair in the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

Direction of non-recoverable strain in the glenohumeral capsule following multiple anterior dislocations: Implications for anatomic Bankart repair

The study aimed to analyze the direction of non-recoverable strain and determine the optimal direction for anatomic capsular plication within four sub-regions of the inferior glenohumeral capsule following multiple dislocations. Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were dissected. A grid of strain markers was affixed to the inferior glenohumeral capsule. Each joint was mounted in a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic testing system and repeatedly dislocated in the anterior direction 10 times at 60° of abduction and 60° of external rotation of the glenohumeral joint. The 3D positions of the strain markers were compared before and after dislocations to define the non-recoverable strain. The strain map was divided into four sub-regions. The angles of deviation between each maximum principle strain vector and the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament (AB-IGHL) or posterior band of the IGHL (PB-IGHL) for the anterior and posterior regions of the capsule were determined. The mean direction of all strain vectors in each sub-region was categorized. The direction of the non-recoverable strain in the anterior-band and anterior-axillary-pouch sub-regions was categorized as parallel to the AB-IGHL, whereas the posterior-axillary-pouch and posterior-band sub-regions were mostly perpendicular to the PB-IGHL. Clinical Significance: Plication of the anteroinferior capsule parallel to the AB-IGHL may be preferred during arthroscopic Bankart repair to restore anatomy; posteroinferior capsular plication may also be necessary and best performed perpendicular to the PB-IGHL. The direction of the capsular injury remains the same irrespective of the number of dislocations. This study provides the scientific and quantitative rationale for an anatomic approach to capsular plication.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with additional footprint fixation using the double-row technique at the 4 o'clock position anatomically restored the capsulolabral complex and showed good clinical results

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcome and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings after arthroscopic Bankart repair with additional double anchor footprint fixation (DAFF) at the 4 o'clock position, where the native footprint is widest anatomically, for recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Forty-two patients (mean age 27.0 years) with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and without severe glenoid bone defects underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with additional DAFF at the 4 o'clock position. Using three standard portals, single-row repair was performed at the 2, 3, and 5 o'clock positions, and DAFF with the suture bridging technique was conducted at the 4 o'clock position. MRI was performed preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Patients with follow-up periods of ≥1 year were included in the present study and clinically evaluated at the final follow-up. The morphology at the 2 and 4 o'clock positions on radial MRI slices was compared between the preoperative and 6-month postoperative scans, and the footprint of the repaired capsulolabral complex at 6 months postoperatively was compared between the 2 and 4 o'clock positions.

RESULTS

The average follow-up period was 19.5 ± 6.2 months. The rates of dislocation recurrence and positive apprehension test results were 2.4 and 4.8%, respectively. External rotation was restricted by 3.5°. The University of California at Los Angeles and Rowe scores at the final follow-up were 34.5 ± 1.0 points and 97.2 ± 5.7 points, respectively, representing significant improvements over the preoperative scores (p < 0.01). Although the capsulolabral complex at 6 months postoperatively was firmly repaired at both the 2 and 4 o'clock positions compared to its preoperative state, the footprint of the restored capsulolabral complex was wider at the 4 o'clock position than at the 2 o'clock position (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional DAFF at the 4 o'clock position improved the glenohumeral stability and function of the shoulder joint. This study suggests that this technique is a reliable and useful treatment for shoulder instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Effect of Anterior Glenoid Chondrolabral Defects on Anterior Glenohumeral Stability: A Biomechanical Study

Background:

It is well known that glenoid osseous defects >13.5% of the glenoid width critically destabilize the shoulder, as do labral tears. Chondrolabral defects often occur with anterior dislocation of the shoulder. It is unclear whether glenoid chondrolabral defects contribute to shoulder stability and, if so, at what size they become critical.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of incremental chondrolabral defect sizes on anterior shoulder stability in the setting of labral deficiency. The hypothesis was that chondrolabral defects ≥13.5% of the glenoid width will decrease anterior shoulder stability.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

This controlled laboratory study tested 12 fresh-frozen shoulders. Specimens were attached to a custom testing device in abduction and neutral rotation with 50-N compression applied to the glenoid. The humeral head was translated 10 mm anterior, anteroinferior, and anterosuperior with the conditions of intact cartilage and labrum and anterior full-thickness chondrolabral defects of 3-, 6-, and 9-mm width. Translation force was measured continuously. Peak translation force divided by 50-N compressive force defined the stability ratio. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance.

Results:

The anterior stability ratio decreased between the intact state (36% ± 7%) and all defects ≥3 mm (≤32% ± 8%; P ≤ .023). The anteroinferior stability ratio decreased between the intact state (52% ± 7%) and all defects ≥3 mm (≤47% ± 7%; P ≤ .006). The anterosuperior stability ratio decreased between the intact state (36% ± 4%) and all defects ≥6 mm (≤33% ± 4%; P ≤ .006). A 3-mm defect equated to 10% of the glenoid width. There were moderate to strong negative correlations between chondrolabral defect size and stability ratio in the anterior, anteroinferior, and anterosuperior directions (r = –0.79, –0.63, and –0.58, respectively; P ≤ .001). There were moderate to strong negative correlations between the percentage of glenoid chondrolabral defect size to the glenoid width and the stability percentage in all directions (r = –0.81, –0.63, and –0.61; P ≤ .001).

Conclusion:

An anterior glenoid chondrolabral defect ≥3 mm (>10% of the glenoid width) significantly decreased anterior and anteroinferior stability. Chondrolabral defect size negatively correlated with stability.

Clinical Relevance:

To fully restore glenohumeral stability, in addition to labral repair, it may be necessary to reconstruct chondrolabral defects as small as 3 mm (10% of the glenoid width).

Arthroscopic Reduction and Internal Fixation of an Osseous Bankart Lesion

Operative treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability is challenging, particularly with the presence of an anterior glenoid rim fracture, also called an "osseous Bankart lesion." Successful reduction and fixation of the lesion has been shown to greatly reduce the risk of recurrent dislocations while achieving osseous union and normalization of glenoid anatomy¹.

Description

The current surgical video article outlines a technique for an osseous Bankart repair in a patient with a displaced fracture as well as substantial pain and instability. First, the amount of bone loss is measured on 3-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography (CT) imaging, with the humeral head digitally subtracted². The procedure is then performed arthroscopically with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. A diagnostic evaluation, beginning with posterior and anterior portal placement in the rotator interval, is completed to assess any rotator cuff injury and the extent of labral tearing and osseous displacement. Next, the bone fragment is elevated into its anatomical position. This fragment is then reduced with use of a double-row suture technique, followed by concomitant capsulolabral repair.

Alternatives

Nonoperative treatment with a sling can be utilized as long as post-reduction CT scans reveal anteroposterior centering of the humeral head on the glenoid³. Rehabilitation can include active-assisted and passive glenohumeral mobilization, as well as daily pendulum exercises and physiotherapy.

Rationale

Osseous Bankart repair has been shown to effectively improve patient-reported outcomes and normalize glenoid morphology^1,3,4. Failure to recognize and appropriately treat an osseous Bankart fracture may lead to osseous erosion caused by repetitive episodes of subluxations or dislocations, along with substantial pain and weakness⁵. Indications for arthroscopic Bankart repair include young, active patients with a reducible fracture fragment, an anterior glenoid deficit of >10%, and a history of failed nonoperative treatment^3-8.

Expected Outcomes

Clinical outcomes following the osseous Bankart repair procedure have been shown to be highly successful, with high rates of return to sport, minimal reduction in range of motion, and restoration of shoulder function and stability⁴. Additionally, long-term follow-up has shown successful osseous union and normalization of glenoid anatomy¹.

Important Tips

Apply tension to sutures with a suture retriever before the PushLock anchors (Arthrex) are placed during fracture reduction.Utilize a trans-subscapularis portal for anchor placement medial to the fracture on the glenoid neck.Perform adjustable tensioning during labral repair with knotless all-suture anchors.Utilize a lateral distraction device with the patient in the lateral decubitus position to completely visualize the anteroinferior glenoid.Chronic onset and late intervention may cause difficulties in the reduction of the bone fragment.Suture management may be difficult, particularly for surgeons at an early stage of the learning curve.A defect that is wide (from medial to lateral) may be difficult to maneuver around and reduce.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

GH = glenohumeralGHL = glenohumeral ligamentPts = patientsPMH = previous medical historyFE = forward elevationER = external rotationIR = internal rotationABD = abductionEXT = external rotationXR = radiographic imagingMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyROM = range of motionFU = follow-upRTS = return to sportsRTPP = return to previous level of play.

Modified Double-Row and Double-Pulley Technique for the Treatment of Type Ia Scapular Glenoid Fractures

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of the double‐row and double‐pulley technique in treating anterior shoulder glenoid fracture (Ideberg type Ia) using shoulder arthroscopy.

Methods

Thirty‐six patients with Ideberg type Ia admitted from March 1, 2017, to March 1, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Data of the patients' history included age, sex, side of the affected arm, the mean time from injury to surgery, the surgical duration, the average blood loss, and the average total duration of hospital stay. The double‐row and double‐pulley technique was used to repair the scapular glenoid fracture under arthroscopy. Computed tomography (CT) was used to evaluate fracture healing after surgery. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder joint scoring system, and the Constant–Murley shoulder function score were used to assess the function of the affected shoulder.

Results

The surgical duration was 90–150 min, with a mean of 127 min. The average blood loss was 90 mL (range, 60–120 mL), and the average total duration of hospital stay was 9.2 days (range, 3 to 14 days). At 9 months after surgery, the CT results showed that all fractures healed, and all patients returned to their previous levels of activity and regained an excellent range of motion. The visual analog scale (VAS) score was 7.55 ± 1.32 before surgery, and the VAS score significantly decreased to 1.24 ± 0.72 at 12 months after the operation (p < 0.05). The Constant, ASES, and UCLA shoulder function scores were 44.38 ± 2.16, 43.47 ± 12.76, and 21.80 ± 1.16 before the surgery, respectively, which improved to 93.52 ± 2.82, 91.34 ± 8.28, and 33.24 ± 1.64, respectively, in the following 12 months. One patient experienced fat liquefaction. However, no cases of deep venous thrombosis, iatrogenic neurovascular compromise, wound infection, or neurovascular injury were identified.

Conclusion

The double‐row and double‐pulley technique for treating Ideberg type Ia under shoulder arthroscopy has minor surgical trauma, reliable fracture reduction and fixation, less postoperative pain, and fewer postoperative complications and significantly improves the patient's shoulder joint function.

Postoperative MR Imaging in Shoulder Instability and Intra-articular Damage

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