Surgical treatment outcomes after primary vs recurrent anterior shoulder instability

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder instability: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Purpose

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) may be more effective than nonoperative management for patients with anterior shoulder instability following first-time dislocation. The purpose of the study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy by evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ABR versus nonoperative treatment.

Methods

This cost-effectiveness study utilized a Markov decision chain and Monte Carlo simulation. Probabilities, health utility values, and outcome data regarding ABR and nonoperative management of first-time shoulder instability derived from level I/II evidence. Costs were tabulated from Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using >100,000 repetitions of the Monte Carlo simulation. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000.

Results

The expected cost for operative management higher than nonoperative management ($32,765 vs $29,343). However, ABR (5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) was the more effective treatment strategy compared to nonoperative management (4.61 QALYs). The ICER for ABR was $3943. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ABR was the most cost-effective strategy in 100% of simulations.

Discussion

ABR is more cost-effective than nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. The threshold analysis demonstrated that when accounting for WTP, ABR was found to be the more cost-effective strategy.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus conservative treatment for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Shoulder is vulnerable to dislocation owing to its anatomical structure and the increasing popularity of contact sports in young population. The management of first-time anterior shoulder dislocation in this group is still controversial and the prognosis are varied. This review aimed to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young active patients.

METHODS

Databases were searched till November 2021, and comparative studies between arthroscopic Bankart repair and conservative management for first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young population were selected. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Back Review Group 12-item scale. Outcome measures included recurrence of instability, return to play, subsequent instability surgery, and shoulder functional scores.

RESULTS

The search returned 12 eligible trials with 786 participants. All the trials were of prospective design. After arthroscopic Bankart repair, patients experienced significantly less re-dislocation (7.5% vs. 53.0%, p < 0.00001, I² = 0%), subluxation (3.1% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.0001, I² = 0%), positive apprehension test (7.3% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.002, I² = 11%), and subsequent surgical treatment for instability (5.6% vs. 37.8%, p < 0.00001, I² = 0%) when compared with those underwent conservative management. And more patients returned to play (83.5% vs. 66.0%, p = 0.03, I² = 81%) after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Outcomes regarding the functional scores did not reach a significant difference between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Bankart repair showed superiority over conservative management in terms of recurrence, return to play, and subsequent instability surgery during the follow-up in young active patients that encountered first episode of dislocation. As long-term prognosis is comparable, an immediate surgical stabilization might not be suitable for everyone.

Increased Failure Rates After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Second Dislocation Compared to Primary Dislocation With Comparable Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent dislocation and postsurgical outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability immediately after a first-time traumatic anterior dislocation versus patients who sustained a second dislocation event after initial nonoperative management.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing primary arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability without concomitant procedures and minimum 2-year clinical follow-up. Primary outcome was documentation of a recurrent shoulder dislocation. Secondary clinical outcomes included range of motion, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), and Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients (mean age 21.3 years ± 7.3 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three shoulders underwent surgical stabilization after a single shoulder dislocation, and 14 underwent surgery after 2 dislocations. Average follow-up was 35.9 months. The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the 2-dislocation group compared to single dislocations (42.8% vs 14.2%, P = .03). No significant difference was present in range of motion, VAS, ASES, and SAS scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 1.4 for VAS and 1.8 for SAS scores. The MCID was met or exceeded in the primary dislocation group in 31/38 (81.6%) patients for VAS, 23/31 (74.1%) for ASES, and 24/31 for SES (77.4%) scores. For the second dislocation cohort, MCID was met or exceeded in 7/9 (77.8%) for VAS, 4/7 (57.1%) for ASES, and 5/7 for SES (71.4%) scores.

CONCLUSION

Immediate arthroscopic surgical stabilization after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation significantly decreases the risk of recurrent dislocation in comparison to those who undergo surgery after 2 dislocation events, with comparable clinical outcome scores. These findings suggest that patients who return to activities after a primary anterior shoulder dislocation and sustain just 1 additional dislocation event are at increased risk of a failing arthroscopic repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

No Difference Between Anchorless and Traditional Suture Anchors in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Clinical Comparison

Background

Shoulder instability and recurrent dislocations are common problems encountered by orthopedic surgeons and are frequently associated with a Bankart lesion. These are classically treated with either open or arthroscopic repair utilizing traditional suture anchors, though anchorless fixation techniques have recently been developed as an alternate fixation method that reduces native bone loss and has comparable pull-out strength.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed at a single institution for patients who underwent Bankart repair from January 2008 through February 2014. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaires were mailed to 35 patients with anchorless fixation and 35 age-, gender-, and surgeon-matched patients with traditional suture anchors. Statistical analysis was performed comparing re-dislocation, additional surgery, and ASES scores with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results

Eleven patients in the anchorless implant group and 15 patients in the anchor group completed the questionnaire. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years in the anchorless group and 5.6 years in the anchor group (p=0.04). The number of implants was 4.82 in the anchorless group and 3.87 in the anchor group (p = 0.04). No difference was found in re-dislocation rates (p = 0.80) or additional surgery on the affected shoulder (p = 0.75). ASES scores were found to have no statistical difference (89.89 for the anchorless group versus 85.37 for the anchor group; p = 0.78).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart lesion repair with traditional anchors compared to anchorless fixation, there appears to be no difference in shoulder re-dislocation rates, recurrent ipsilateral shoulder surgery, or ASES scores.

Low grade of osteoarthritis development after Latarjet procedure with a minimum 5 years of follow-up: a systematic review and pooled analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and pooled analysis was to evaluate incidence and risk factors for glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) in patients who underwent Latarjet procedure with a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review. PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to February 29, 2020 for English, human in vivo studies that evaluated glenohumeral OA in patients undergoing Latarjet procedure at least 5 years after surgery. A pooled analysis on the included databases sent by authors was performed to evaluate the risk factors influencing the development or progression of dislocation arthropathy after the Latarjet procedure.

RESULTS

Four studies, including a total of 280 patients (213 males and 67 females), were analysed. In our study population, the median age at surgery was 25.0 years (range 20.8-32.6 years). and 92.1% were athletes. In 90% of the cases, the number of dislocations before surgery were fewer than 5. The recurrence of instability after Latarjet procedure was observed only in seven patients (2.5%). The position of the bone graft resulted flush to the anterior glenoid rim in 238 cases (85.3%), medial in 8 (2.9%) and overhanging in 33 (11.8%). Radiological signs of development or progression of shoulder OA were observed in 25.8% of the patients, of which 88.6% presented a grade 1 of OA according to Samilson and Prieto classification. The overhanging position of the bone graft resulted statistically significant for onset or worsening of OA. The age at surgery, the number of dislocations before surgery and the Hill-Sachs lesion were not significantly associated with joint degeneration. Instead, hyperlaxity showed a prevention role in the development of OA after open Latarjet procedure.

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure is a valid and safe surgical treatment in recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a low risk of developing moderate or severe OA also at long-term follow-up. The overhanging position of the bone graft represents the principal risk factor of joint degeneration, whereas the hyperlaxity seems to be protective. Finally, age, gender, time between first dislocation and surgery, and number of dislocations do not seem to affect the onset of OA after Latarjet procedure. Therefore, an accurate execution of the Latarjet procedure can be considered a valid treatment even in young and athletes thanks to the low recurrence rates and the low development of major long-term complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Primary Versus Recurrent Anterior Instability in Athletes Results in Excellent Clinical Outcomes, High Rates of Return to Play, and Low Recurrence Rates

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of athletes who have been treated for either primary or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR for anterior shoulder instability, with a minimum of 24 months’ follow-up, was performed. Those who underwent ABR for primary instability were matched in a 1:1 ratio for age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play to those who underwent ABR for recurrent instability. The rate, level, and timing of return to play (RTP), as well as the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, were evaluated. Additionally, the recurrence rate, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the same operation again were compared.

Results

After analysis of 467 patients, 100 athletes who underwent ABR for primary instability were identified and subsequently pair matched to 100 patients who underwent ABR for recurrent instability, with a mean age of 27.2 years, 87% male patients, 68% collision athletes, and a mean follow-up period of 61.9 months. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of RTP (80% vs 79%, P = .86) or RTP at the preinjury level (65% vs 65%, P >. 999); however, there was a significant difference in time to RTP (6.9 ± 2.9 months vs 5.9 ± 2.5 months, P = .02). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale score, Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, patient satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the operation again (P > .05 for all). There was no difference in the rate of recurrent instability after ABR (10% vs 16%, P = .29).

Conclusions

ABR results in excellent clinical outcomes, high rates of RTP, and low recurrence rates for both athletes with primary instability and those with recurrent instability.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study.

Multiple Instability Events at Initial Presentation Are the Major Predictor of Failure of Nonoperative Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE

To define the success rate of initial nonoperative treatment for traumatic anterior shoulder instability in a defined U.S. geographic population, describe factors that predict conversion to surgery after initial nonoperative management, and describe the long-term outcomes of nonoperative treatment after the index traumatic anterior instability event.

METHODS

The Rochester Epidemiology Project database was used to identify patients aged 14 to 39 years treated for anterior shoulder instability between 1994 and 2016. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, and imaging were evaluated. Patients treated nonoperatively for the first 6 months after the index instability event were analyzed to determine long-term outcomes (recurrence rate, pain at last follow-up, radiographic outcomes), the success rate of continued nonoperative treatment (no conversion to surgery), and factors associated with conversion to surgery (patient and injury characteristics). Survivorship free of surgery was reported with a Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate association of variables with conversion to surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients met the study criteria, with an average follow-up period of 10.2 years (range, 0.53-25.00 years). The average age was 23.9 years, the mean body mass index was 26.2, and 100% of instability events were due to trauma. Of the shoulders, 79 (20.1%) ultimately failed initial nonoperative treatment and progressed to surgery. At final follow-up, the rate of recurrent instability was 52.3% in the group treated definitively without surgery, and the recurrence rate decreased from 92.4% to 10.1% in patients who underwent conversion to surgical treatment. Factors associated with conversion to surgery included 2 or more subluxations prior to the first evaluation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.82; P = .002), 2 or more dislocations prior to the first evaluation (HR, 1.76; P = .006), and recurrent instability at follow-up (HR, 4.21; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients younger than 40 years with shoulder instability who were initially treated nonoperatively for 6 months were definitively treated without surgery. Ultimately, 35% of these patients experienced recurrent dislocations after 6 months of conservative treatment and 20% underwent surgical treatment. In most patients who underwent conversion to surgical treatment, surgery was performed within 12.5 years of their first instability event. Patients who experienced multiple instability events before or after consultation were more likely to undergo conversion to surgery after initial nonoperative management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective database review.

Although Surgical Techniques Differ, Similar Outcomes Can Be Obtained When Operating After Single Versus Multiple Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

Purpose

To compare the differences in preoperative pathology, surgical technique, and overall outcomes between patients treated surgically after a single anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation and those undergoing surgery after multiple dislocations.

Methods

An epidemiologic database was used to identify all patients younger than 40 years undergoing surgery for anterior shoulder instability between January 1, 1994, and July 31, 2016, in a defined geographic area. Patient medical records were reviewed to obtain demographic information, patient history, physical examination findings, imaging findings, clinical progression, surgical details, and outcomes. Comparative analysis was performed between patients who underwent surgery after a single dislocation and those who underwent surgery after multiple preoperative dislocations.

Results

The study population consisted of 187 patients who had a single anterior shoulder dislocation (n = 55) or multiple anterior shoulder dislocations (n = 132) prior to surgery. The mean follow-up period was 103.3 months (range, 0.3-328.4 months). Demographic characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Although the presence of Hill-Sachs lesions on radiographs was more common in the multiple-dislocation group (42.1%) than in the single-dislocation group (18.8%, P = .005), there were no other significant differences in concomitant pathology between groups. Latarjet procedures were more commonly performed in the multiple-dislocation group (12.5% vs 2.1% in the single-dislocation group, P = .04). There were no other significant differences in surgical techniques and characteristics between groups. Rates of survival free from recurrent instability (P = .790), revision surgery (P = .726), and progression to symptomatic osteoarthritis (P = .588) were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions

Although patients with multiple dislocations prior to surgery were more likely to show radiographic evidence of Hill-Sachs lesions and undergo the Latarjet procedure than those who received surgery after a single dislocation, no significant differences in outcomes with respect to recurrent instability, revision surgery, or progression to symptomatic osteoarthritis were found between these 2 groups at long-term follow-up.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Evidence-based Risk Stratification for Sport Medicine Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Orthopaedic practices have been markedly affected by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the ban on elective procedures, it is impossible to define the medical urgency of a case solely on whether a case is on an elective surgery schedule. Orthopaedic surgical procedures should consider COVID-19-associated risks and an assimilation of all available disease dependent, disease independent, and logistical information that is tailored to each patient, institution, and region. Using an evidence-based risk stratification of clinical urgency, we provide a framework for prioritization of orthopaedic sport medicine procedures that encompasses such factors. This can be used to facilitate the risk-benefit assessment of the timing and setting of a procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Conservative Management for First-Time Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis of the current evidence in the literature comparing arthroscopic Bankart repair versus conservative management for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.

METHODS

A literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Prospective studies comparing arthroscopic Bankart repair versus conservative management as treatment for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included. Recurrence, further treatment, and return to play were compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, version 5.3. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ten prospective studies with 569 patients were included. Arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in a lower rate of total recurrent instability (9.7% vs 67.4, I² = 0, P < .0001) and further surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability (5.9% vs 46.7%, I² = 0, P < .0001). Additionally, arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in a higher rate of return to play (92.8% vs 80.8%, I² = 0, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in a 7-fold lower recurrence rate and a higher rate of return to play than conservative management. Thus, arthroscopic Bankart repair may be advisable to perform routinely in patients with first-time dislocation who participate in sports.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Management of bone loss in recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a survey of North American surgeons

Background

Management of bone loss in recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability remains a topic of debate and controversy in the orthopedic community. The purpose of this study was to survey members of 4 North American orthopedic surgeon associations to assess management trends for bone loss in recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to all members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Canadian Orthopaedic Association and to fellow members of the Arthroscopy Association of North America. The survey comprised 3 sections assessing the demographic characteristics of survey respondents, the influence of prognostic factors on surgical decision making, and the operative management of 12 clinical case scenarios of varying bone loss that may be encountered in clinical practice.

Results

A total of 150 survey responses were returned. The age of the patient and quantity of bone loss were consistently considered important prognostic criteria. However, little consensus was reached for critical thresholds of bone loss and how this affected the timing (ie, primary or revision surgery) and type of bony augmentation procedure to be performed once a critical threshold was reached, especially in the context of critical humeral and bipolar bone loss.

Conclusions

Consistent trends were found for the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in cases in which no bone loss existed and when isolated critical glenoid bone loss was present. However, inconsistencies were observed when isolated critical humeral bone loss and bipolar bone loss were present.

What Are the Effects of Remplissage on 6-Month Strength and Range of Motion After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair? A Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients who have undergone shoulder instability surgery are often allowed to return to sports, work, and high-level activity based largely on a time-based criterion of 6 months postoperatively. However, some believe that advancing activity after surgery should be dependent on the return of strength and range of motion (ROM).

HYPOTHESIS

There will be a significant loss of strength or ROM at 6 months after arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage compared with Bankart repair alone.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 38 patients in a prospective multicenter study underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (33 males, 5 females; mean age, 27.0 ± 10.2 years; 82% with ≥2 dislocation events in the past year). Strength and ROM were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months after surgery. Results were compared with 104 matched patients who had undergone Bankart repair without remplissage, although all had radiographic evidence of a Hill-Sachs defect.

RESULTS

At 6 months, there were no patients in the remplissage group with anterior apprehension on physical examination. However, 26% had a ≥20° external rotation (ER) deficit with the elbow at the side, 42% had a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction, and 5% had persistent weakness. Compared with matched patients who underwent only arthroscopic Bankart repair, the remplissage group had greater humeral bone loss and had a greater likelihood of a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction (P = .004). Risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction were preoperative stiffness in the same plane (P = .02), while risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at the side were increased number of inferior quadrant glenoid anchors (P = .003), increased patient age (P = .02), and preoperative side-to-side deficits in ER (P = .04). The only risk factor for postoperative ER weakness was preoperative ER weakness (P = .04), with no association with remplissage (P = .26).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage did not result in significant strength deficits but increased the risk of ER stiffness in abduction compared with Bankart repair without remplissage at short-term follow-up.