Limited Predictive Value of the Instability Severity Index Score: Evaluation of 217 Consecutive Cases of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Management of the in-season athlete with an anterior shoulder dislocation

BACKGROUND

Management of the in-season athlete presenting with an anterior shoulder dislocation is a nuanced process that continues to be refined. Options and pathways between nonoperative and operative treatment have undergone many iterations over a century of orthopedic research and advancement. It requires an understanding of sport-specific demands and the individual athlete's goals. The orthopedic surgeon must have mastery of the natural history, treatment options, and outcomes of anterior shoulder dislocations. Balance of these factors is delicate and highly individualized for each athlete, and is why management of the in-season athlete with an anterior shoulder dislocation remains an art for the orthopedic surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A narrative review of the literature regarding the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The findings are summarized in this article.

RESULTS

Multiple studies have investigated management of the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation. Treatment is highly individualized for each athlete and their respective circumstances. Nonoperative treatment remains the only option for athletes that seek to return to play in the same season, however with a high risk of recurrence. Operative treatment has a track record of success in terms of returning to high level of play and lower recurrence, but would preclude a return to competition in the same season.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation remains a challenging issue without consensus recommendation among shoulder surgeons. Much has been done to understand the pathology and delineate indications for nonoperative treatment and surgical management. Although recurrence and return to play rates have improved with each iteration, recurrent instability and revision surgery continue to occur at high rates. Therefore, additional work remains to optimize return to play as well as long-term outcomes for athletes.

Risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

RESULTS

Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a 2-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171 of 634) for patients <20 years old compared with 13.3% (197 of 1485) for older patients (P < .001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (odds ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29 of 156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors, compared with 18.1% (89 of 491) with 3 or more anchors (P = .06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior tear (0%).

CONCLUSION

Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise.

METHODS

This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%.

CONCLUSION

ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior guided system and suture-button fixation enables more precise bone block positioning in the axial plane versus anterior screws fixation

PURPOSE

Adequate position of the bone block during arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is critical for an optimal functional outcome. However, this procedure is complex with a long learning curve. Our aim was to compare the bone block position between a dedicated glenoid posterior instrumentation and suture button fixation versus an anterior screw fixation, on a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan.

METHOD

Seventy-nine consecutive patients operated on for an anterior shoulder instability were included in this retrospective study. The same surgeon performed arthroscopically the Latarjet procedure either with an anterior drilling and screw fixation (Group A), or with a specific posterior glenoid guide pin, a posterior drilling, and a suture cortical button fixation (Group B). Evaluations were made by two independent observers. The position was evaluated by CT scan in the axial and sagittal planes. Learning curves with operative time, complications and clinical outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in Group A and 44 in Group B. In Group A, 27 bone blocks were flush (87.1%) and 38 in Group B (92.7%) (p < 0.01). In Group A, 72% of the bone block height was below the equator and 76%, in Group B (ns). The mean operating time was 123 ± 32.5 min in Group A and 95 ± 34.1 min in Group B (p < 0.0001). At the final follow-up, the mean aggregate Rowe score was respectively 94.6 ± 10.4 and 93.1 ± 9.8 points in Groups A and B. The mean aggregate Walch-Duplay score was respectively 94.2 ± 11.6 and 93.4 ± 10.6 points in Groups A and B. There were 11 complications (31.4%) in Group A and five complications (11.3%) in Group B (ns).

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior drilling guided system and suture-button fixation allows more precise positioning in the axial plane than with anterior drilling and screw fixation. This posterior-guided procedure could reduce intraoperative and short-term complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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.

Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients With Hyperlaxity and Near-Track Lesions

Background

Recurrent anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair presents a challenging clinical problem, with the primary stabilization procedure often portending the best chance for clinical success.

Purpose

To determine if capsuloligamentous laxity affects failure (recurrent dislocation, subluxation, and/or perceived instability symptoms) after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with near-track lesions (ie, those with smaller distance to dislocation [DTD]).

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability at a single institution between 2007 and 2019 and who had at least 2 years of follow-up data. Patients with glenoid bone loss >20%, off-track lesions, concomitant remplissage, or rotator cuff tear were excluded. Capsuloligamentous laxity, or hyperlaxity, was defined as external rotation >85° with the arm at the side and/or grade ≥2 in at least 2 planes with the shoulder at 90° of abduction. Near-track lesions were defined as those with a DTD <10 mm.

Results

Included were 173 patients (mean age, 20.5 years; mean DTD, 16.2 mm), of whom 16.8% sustained a recurrent dislocation and 6.4% had recurrent subluxations (defined as any subjective complaint of recurrent instability without frank dislocation), for an overall recurrent instability rate of 23.1%. The rate of revision stabilization was 15.6%. The mean time to follow-up was 7.4 years. Independent predictors of recurrent instability were younger age (P = .001), smaller DTD (P = .021), >1 preoperative instability episode (P < .001), and the presence of hyperlaxity during examination under anesthesia (P = .013). Among patients with near-track lesions, those with hyperlaxity had a recurrent instability rate almost double that of patients without hyperlaxity (odds ratio, 34.1; P = .04). The increased rate of failure and recurrent dislocation in the near-track hyperlaxity cohort remained elevated, even in patients with no bone loss.

Conclusion

Capsuloligamentous shoulder laxity was a significant independent risk factor for failure after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair without remplissage and was more predictive of failure in patients with versus without near-track lesions.

Management of Shoulder Instability in Patients with Seizure Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with seizure disorders commonly suffer shoulder dislocations and subsequent instability. Due to high rates of recurrence and bone loss, management of this instability and associated pathology has proven to be more complex than that of patients without seizure disorders. The ultimate goal of this review is to outline the various treatment modalities and their respective outcomes in this complex patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Optimization of medical management of seizure disorders is imperative. However, despite these efforts, the incidence of post-operative seizure activity continues to be a concern. These subsequent episodes increase the risk of further instability and failure of surgical procedures. Overall, the use of soft tissue procedures has proven to result in increased recurrence of instability compared to bone-block augmenting and grafting procedures. There are a variety of bone-block procedures that have been described for anterior and posterior instability. Despite their success in decreasing further instability, they are associated with several complications that patients should be informed of. There is no consensus regarding the optimal surgical management of shoulder instability in patients with seizure activity. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of the seizure activity is paramount to the success of their treatment. Further studies are required to evaluate the optimal timing and type of surgical intervention for individualized cases.

High correlation between inner and outer glenoid circle diameters and its clinical relevance

PURPOSE

The majority of methods for measuring glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability use the best-fit circle following the inferior glenoid rim. However, there is no precise method on how to draw this circle, particularly in case of a missing rim segment. Defining the radius is a source of substantial error. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between the best-fit inferior circle (inner circle), defined by Sugaya, and the circle tangent to the supra- and infra-glenoid tubercles (outer circle), defined by Itoi, thus allowing a more consistent appreciation of the paleo-glenoid.

METHODS

Ninety-five normal dry scapulae were examined. The specimens were digitally photographed obtaining perpendicular images of the glenoid cavity. Using HOROS® imaging software, a best-fit inferior circle (inner circle) and a second circle fitting the most inferior and superior points of the glenoid (outer circle) were drawn by two investigators. The diameters and areas of the circles were recorded. Two-way random-effects intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure intra- and inter-observer agreement. A Bayesian measurement-error regression model was used to determine the relationship between outer and inner circle measurements.

RESULTS

The mean glenoid height was 35.1 mm and the glenoid width 25.6 mm. The mean diameter of the outer circle was 35.7 ± 4.2 mm and the mean diameter of the inner circle was 26.8 ± 3.2 mm. ICC showed excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement for both the outer circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.95) and inner circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.93). The two diameters demonstrated a very strong significant Pearson correlation (0.92, p < 0.001) and the regression showed excellent model fit R2 = 0.87. The areas of the two circles were also highly and significantly correlated (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). The ratio of inner circle to outer diameters was 0.74.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong correlation between the inner and outer glenoid circle diameters. This study sets the base for the use the combined outer and inner circle and its ratio to better appreciate the paleo-glenoid morphology and thus obtain a more reliable bone loss estimation. Application of this method aids in a more reliable estimation bone loss with potential benefit in surgical decision-making.

Is preoperative glenoid defect size a reliable indicator of postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair in teenage competitive athletes?

BACKGROUND

Being younger than 20 years of age at the time of arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is known to be one of the most important risk factors for postoperative recurrence of instability. When deciding on the appropriate surgical approach, surgeons generally consider only the size of a critical glenoid defect, and most of them do not take into account factors such as the size of bone fragments and possible bone union after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair (ABBR). Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to clarify the risk factors for postoperative recurrence after ABR in teenage competitive athletes by focusing on glenoid rim morphologies and bone union.

METHODS

Participants were 115 teenage competitive athletes without a capsular injury who underwent primary ABR for chronic traumatic anterior instability and were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Possible risk factors for postoperative recurrence were investigated by univariate and multivariate analysis. In shoulders with a glenoid defect and bone fragment, the influence of glenoid defect size and bone fragment size on bone union after ABBR was also investigated.

RESULTS

Postoperative recurrence was seen in 16 patients (13.9%). Regarding glenoid defect size, recurrence was seen in 1 (3.2%) of 31 shoulders with a glenoid defect smaller than 5% (including those with a normal glenoid), 15 (22.1%) of 68 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 5%-20%, and 0 (0%) of 16 shoulders with a glenoid defect of 20% or larger (P = .009). Regarding bone union, recurrence was seen in 4 (6.9%) of 58 shoulders with complete or partial bone union after ABBR and 8 (40%) of 20 shoulders with nonunion or disappearance of the bone fragment (P = .001). Regarding bone fragment size, recurrence was seen in 12 (20.7%) of 58 shoulders with a small or no bone fragment (<7.5%) and in 3 (8.6%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P = .154). Multivariate analysis identified non-union or disappearance of the bone fragment after ABBR as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Complete or partial bone union was seen in 25 (58.1%) of 43 shoulders with a small bone fragment (<7.5%) and 33 (94.3%) of 35 shoulders with a large bone fragment (≥7.5%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In teenage competitive athletes, bone union after ABBR affects postoperative recurrence after ABR, regardless of the preoperative glenoid defect size, and bone union rate after ABBR is significantly influenced by bone fragment size.

Clinical outcomes and recurrence rate of 4 procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: ASA, remplissage, open, and arthroscopic Latarjet: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 4 surgical techniques in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation, glenoid bone loss (GBL) <15% and Instability Severity Index (ISI) score >3.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted on 226 patients who underwent 1 of 4 different techniques (Bankart plus arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA), Bankart plus remplissage, Latarjet, Arthro-Latarjet). The inclusion criteria were: recurrent dislocation, GBL <15%, and ISI score >3. The exclusion criteria were: GBL >15%, voluntary instability, multidirectional instability, preexisting osteoarthritis, throwing athletes' first dislocation, and ISI score<3. Follow-up ranged from 24 months to 6 years. Hyperlaxity was clinically evaluated according to Neer and Coudane-Walch tests. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Rowe score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) for each technique. Before surgery, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scanning. The Pico area method was used to assess the percentage of GBL. The operations were performed by 10 experienced surgeons; the functional outcomes were evaluated by 2 independent observers.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the present series. A total of 89.2% of patients in the ASA group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale, improved from 838 to 235 points. A total of 79.9% of patients in remplissage (R) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1146 to 465 points. A total of 98.5% of patients in the Latarjet (L) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1456 to 319 points. A total of 81.6% of patients in the Arthro-Latarjet (AL) group reported an excellent Rowe score at the final follow-up, and their scores on the WOSI scale improved from 1250 to 221 points. The recurrence rates were as follows: ASA group (7%), remplissage group (6.1%), L group (1.5%), Arthro-Latarjet group (0%). Patients in the open L group had 15.5% (10/66) more complications.

CONCLUSION

The use of ASA and remplissage to augment the Bankart repair have been demonstrated to be effective for restoring joint stability, yielding good clinical outcomes similar to the L procedure in patients affected by recurrent anterior dislocation with GBL <15% and an ISI score score >3. Soft tissues augmentations of the Bankart repair have been demonstrated to be effective for addressing anterior soft tissue deficiency dysfunction and critical Hill-Sachs lesions.

Inconsistencies in Controlling for Risk Factors for Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failure rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are highly variable in the current orthopaedic literature. Predictive factors for risk of failure have been studied to improve patient selection, refine surgical techniques, and define the role of bony procedures. However, significant heterogeneity in the analysis and controlling of risk factors makes evidence-based management decisions challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this systematic review were (1) to critically assess the consistency of reported risk factors for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, (2) to identify the existing studies with the most comprehensive inclusion of confounding factors in their analyses, and (3) to give recommendations for which factors should be reported consistently in future clinical studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. An initial search yielded 1754 titles, from which 56 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. A total of 29 full-text articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding recurrent anterior shoulder instability; (2) surgical procedures performed including arthroscopic anterior labral repair; (3) reported clinical outcome data including failure rate; and (4) assessment of risk factors for surgical failure. Further subanalyses were performed for 15 studies that included a multivariate analysis, 17 studies that included glenoid bone loss, and 8 studies that analyzed the Instability Severity Index Score.

RESULTS

After full-text review, 12 of the most commonly studied risk factors were identified and included in this review. The risk factors that were most consistently significant in multivariate analyses were off-track lesions (100%), glenoid bone loss (78%), Instability Severity Index Score (75%), level of sports participation (67%), number of anchors (67%), and younger age (63%). In studies of bone loss, statistical significance was more likely to be found using advanced imaging, with critical bone loss thresholds of 10% to 15%. Several studies found predictive thresholds of 2 to 4 for Instability Severity Index Score by receiver operating characteristic or multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Studies reporting risk factors for failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair often fail to control for known confounding variables. The factors with the most common statistical significance among 15 multivariate analyses are off-track lesions, glenoid bone loss, Instability Severity Index Score, level of sports participation, number of anchors, and younger age. Studies found significance more commonly with advanced imaging measurements or arthroscopic assessment of glenoid bone loss and with lower thresholds for the Instability Severity Index Score (2-4). Future studies should attempt to control for all relevant factors, use advanced imaging for glenoid bone loss measurements, and consider a lower predictive threshold for the Instability Severity Index Score.

Early Treatment of Shoulder Pathology Is Necessary but Not Enough Is Being Performed

Delayed treatment of shoulder instability results in bone loss requiring more-complicated surgery, in turn resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Similarly, delayed treatment of repairable rotator cuff tears results in irreparable tears requiring more-complicated surgery and resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Delayed treatment of shoulder pathology is a problem. Solutions include education and research investigation.

Failure and Complication Rates in Common Sports and Arthroscopic Procedures: Reality Check

Expectations following sports medicine and arthroscopic procedures have been elevated because of captivating modern-day media coverage of high-profile athletic injuries, surgery, and rapid return to sports. Unfortunately, this general perception may be misleading, and orthopedic sports medicine physicians must be aware of the harsh reality of the trials and tribulations associated with the subspecialty. The purpose of this review article is to provide an updated brief overview of the complications and failure rates associated with common arthroscopic procedures including rotator cuff repair, biceps tenodesis, Bankart procedure, Latarjet procedure, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, anterior cruciate ligament repair, meniscal repair, tibial tubercle osteotomy, and medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Highlighting the complications is the first step toward early recognition, enhancing preventative measures, and successful management.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Bankart Repair-An International Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

The independent factors identified in the 2 statements that reached unanimous agreement in diagnosis and nonoperative management were age, gender, mechanism of injury, number of instability events, whether reduction was required, occupation, sport/position/level played, collision sport, glenoid or humeral bone-loss, and hyperlaxity. Of the 3 total statements reaching unanimous agreement in Bankart repair, additional factors included overhead sport participation, prior shoulder surgery, patient expectations, and ability to comply with postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that complications are rare following Bankart repair and that recurrence rates can be diminished by a well-defined rehabilitation protocol, inferior anchor placement (5-8 mm apart), multiple small-anchor fixation points, treatment of concomitant pathologies, careful capsulolabral debridement/reattachment, and appropriate indications/assessment of risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 77% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the aspects of patient history that should be evaluated in those with acute instability, the prognostic factors for nonoperative management, and Bankart repair. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the steps to minimize complications for Bankart repair, and the placement of anchors 5-8 mm apart. Finally, there was no consensus on the optimal position for shoulder immobilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Editorial Commentary: The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score Can, in Part, Help to Predict Failure After Nonoperative Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability: Fix Them All Versus Wait and See?

The optimal management of anterior shoulder instability remains a heated topic of debate, particularly after first-time shoulder dislocation. From expedited rehabilitation to arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet coracoid transfer, the shoulder community has staunchly defended its approach with carefully tailored data describing patient satisfaction, instability recurrence, revision surgery, and timeline to return to play or preinjury activity. However, not all patients require surgical stabilization, and a "wait-and-see" approach can often result in favorable outcome. The Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score has been proposed as a unique tool to stratify risk for failure among athletes after an anterior shoulder instability event. While not a standalone tool for predicting further shoulder dislocation in a broader athletic population, the Nonoperative Instability Severity Index Score reflects a movement toward personalized medicine, where clinical decision making is executed on the individual level based on unique risk factors and circumstances.

Editorial Commentary: Management of First-Time Anterior Shoulder Instability Requires Risk Stratification and Surgery for Many, But Not All

The management of a patient with a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation has been the subject of longstanding debate among shoulder surgeons. A number of prognostic factors for recurrent instability have been proposed, including younger age, male sex, contact sports, and glenoid bone loss. Predictive tools and scores have been developed to assist in risk stratifying this patient population; however, no universally agreed upon, clinically validated algorithm exists. More recently, there has been emerging evidence favoring early surgical stabilization, as it has been shown to result in better overall outcomes compared with patients undergoing surgery following episodes of recurrent instability. With each subsequent dislocation or subluxation event, there is increased glenoid bone loss (and development of inverted-pear glenoid), a greater prevalence of engaging (i.e., off-track) Hill-Sachs lesions, more extensive labral tears, a greater risk of rotator cuff involvement (in the older patient), and increased plastic and/or permanent deformation, elongation, and compromise of the antero-inferior glenohumeral joint capsule and associated inferior glenohumeral ligament complex. Moreover, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that recurrence comes at a cost, as it is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following arthroscopic stabilization. However, one risk is overtreatment, potentially exposing those individuals who would not have had another instability event due to an unnecessary procedure. We should continue to use the available evidence within the literature to help risk-stratify patients and develop an individualized treatment plan through a shared decision-making process with the patient.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: What the Instability Severity Index Score Will and Will Not Predict

The recurrence of shoulder instability is a challenging complication after anterior open or arthroscopic stabilization in patients with glenohumeral instability. Use of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure has increased over the last decade, because of its less invasiveness and low complication rates compared with the Latarjet procedure. However, arthroscopic repair has the possibility of a greater recurrent instability rate. The Instability Shoulder Index Score (ISIS) has been developed to predict the success of isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair for the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The risk factors associated with the recurrence of instability are age, level and type of sports participation, shoulder hyperlaxity, and humeral and glenoid bony lesions. The ISIS is a validated tool to predict the recurrence of dislocation after arthroscopic surgery in patients with shoulder instability. The arthroscopic Bankart procedure can be performed in patients with ISIS ≤3 with a low risk of recurrence of glenohumeral instability. The Latarjet procedure should be recommended in patients with ISIS >6. The management of patients with ISIS between 4 and 6 is still controversial and ranges from arthroscopic Bankart procedure with the addition of remplissage to the Latarjet procedure. Because advanced imaging techniques, such as computed tomography scans, allow us to assess appropriately the glenoid and humeral bone defect, their use is recommended in addition to ISIS.

[Injuries of the biceps-labrum complex : Principles, pathologies and treatment concepts]

BACKGROUND

The biceps-labrum complex is prone to acute lesions and degenerative changes due to its anatomical structure and the high load it has to endure. Pathological changes of these structures are common pain generators and can significantly impair shoulder function. Anatomically, the biceps-labrum complex can be divided into three zones: inside, junction and bicipital tunnel.

DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE

Despite the focused physical examination and advancements in imaging techniques, the exact localization of pathologies remains challenging. Arthroscopy can be used to accurately diagnose inside and junctional pathologies but extra-articular changes in the region of the bicipital tunnel can only be partially visualized.

TREATMENT

In cases of unsuccessful conservative treatment and correct indications, a high level of patient satisfaction can be surgically achieved. In young patients an anatomical reconstruction of inside lesions or tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon is performed; however, even tenotomy is a valuable option and can achieve equally satisfactory results. Unaddressed pathological changes of the bicipital tunnel can lead to persistence of pain. In clinical procedures performing tenodesis, both the different techniques and the implants used have been found to show similar results. This article describes the anatomical principles, pathological changes, the focused clinical instrumental diagnostics and discusses the different treatment philosophies as well as the outcome according to the recent literature.