Arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability

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.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in High Failure Rates and a Low Return to Duty Rate Without Recurrent Instability

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine, in a military population without critical bone loss, the rate of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic stabilization for failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Forty-one revision arthroscopic stabilizations were performed at a single military institution between 2005 to 2016 for recurrent anterior shoulder instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Minimum follow-up was 2 years, and shoulders with glenoid bone loss >20% were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of failure, defined by recurrent instability.

RESULTS

Age at revision surgery averaged 22.9 ± 4.3 years, and 88% were either service academy cadets or active duty combat arms soldiers. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years. Twenty-three patients (56%) returned to duty without recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic stabilization. Eighteen patients (44%) experienced recurrent instability after return to duty. Glenoid bone loss averaged 6.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2%-9.2%) in the successful group and 5.7% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.3%) in the failure group (P = .808).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision arthroscopic stabilization of failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair has a failure rate of 44% in a young military population. The similar amounts of bone loss between groups indicates that bone loss is not the primary determinant of failure in revision arthroscopic stabilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Case Series.

Revision Arthroscopic Labral Repair Using All-Suture Anchors in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss After Failed Bankart Repair: Clinical Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-up

Background

All-suture anchors have been used for primary arthroscopic Bankart repair because of their ability to minimize initial bone loss.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of using all-suture anchors in revision arthroscopic labral repair after failed Bankart repair.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Enrolled in this study were 28 patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair with all-suture anchors after a failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Revision surgery was determined for patients who had a frank redislocation history with subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), nonengaged Hill-Sachs lesion, or off-track lesion. Minimum 2-year postoperative outcomes were evaluated using shoulder range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, apprehension, and the redislocation rate. Postoperative shoulder anteroposterior radiographs were assessed to evaluate arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint.

Results

The mean patient age was 28.1 ± 6.5 years, and the mean time between primary Bankart repair and revision surgery was 5.4 ± 4.1 years. Compared with the number of suture anchors used in the primary operation, significantly more all-suture anchors were inserted in the revision surgery (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 5.8 ± 1.3, P < .001). During the mean follow-up period of 31.8 ± 10.1 months, 3 patients (10.7%) required reoperation because of traumatic redislocation and symptomatic instability. Of patients with symptoms that did not require reoperation, 2 patients (7.1%) had subjective instability with apprehension depending on the arm position. There was no significant change between preoperative and postoperative ROM. However, ASES (preoperative: 61.2 ± 13.3 to postoperative: 81.4 ± 10.4, P < .01) and Rowe (preoperative: 48.7 ± 9.3 to postoperative: 81.7 ± 13.2, P < .01) scores were significantly improved after revision surgery. Eight patients (28.6%) showed arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint on final plain anteroposterior radiographs.

Conclusion

Revision arthroscopic labral repair using all-suture anchors demonstrated satisfactory 2-year clinical outcomes in terms of functional improvement. Postoperative stability was obtained in 82% of patients without recurrent shoulder instability after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation.

PURPOSE

We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).

CONCLUSION

With significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

Background:

The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results.

Purpose:

To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery.

Results:

The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003).

Conclusion:

In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

Is Revision Bankart Repair with Remplissage a Viable Option for Failed Bankart Repair in Non-contact Sports Person Aiming to Return to Sports?

PURPOSE

Failure of a well-executed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes is difficult to predict and its management is a lesser investigated area with uncertain outcome in terms of return to sports (RTS). This study analyses effectiveness of revision Bankart repair with remplissage for failed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes, focusing on time and level of RTS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five consecutive non-contact athletes with evidence of instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair having glenoid loss < 25% and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion were included in the study according to algorithm mentioned. All cases underwent revision arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and followed-up for 24 months. Rowe, UCLA, WOSI and Quick-DASH scores were recorded preoperative and at 24 months. RTS was allowed after unilateral seated shot-put test.

RESULTS

Out of 55 cases, 6 were excluded because of poor tissue quality, 7 were lost to follow-up. Forty-two cases with a mean age of 28.2 ± 5.2 years were included. Mean duration between primary surgery and failure was 7.3 ± 1.4 months with a mean 1.9 redislocations. The mean Rowe, WOSI, UCLA, Quick-DASH scores improved from 37 to 89, 39.3 to 83.7%, 18.4 to 30.5, 45.3 to 18.7 at 24 months. Thirty-five cases could RTS in a mean time 15.4 ± 1.4 months. Out of seven cases who could not RTS, four had instability, one had pain and two voluntarily quit sports.

CONCLUSION

Revision Bankart repair with remplissage is a feasible option for failed primary Bankart repair in non-contact athletes who have glenoid bone loss < 25% with off-track Hill-Sachs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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

Background

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

Purpose

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

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure in Irish collision sport athletes

BACKGROUND

While there is an abundance of research examining the outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart repair in collision athletes, very few studies have involved the unique Irish collision sport athlete population. The previously held belief that collision athletes need to be treated with open surgery, due to the high traumatic forces the shoulder is subjected to in these sports, may no longer be true in the context of modern arthroscopic techniques and implants.

AIMS

To report the outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure in the unique Irish collision athlete population.

METHOD

Retrospective review conducted in 2018. Data was obtained from collision sport athletes using customised questionnaires and validated, standardised outcome measure tools. Participants were selected using inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included in the study. The average age at primary injury was 19.9 years (range 13-35 years). The rate of recurrent dislocation was 21% (12/57) with a mean follow up time of 24 months (range 7 to 48 months). The mean patient reported outcome measure (PROM) scores were as follows: ASES = 90.8, WOSI = 316.4, SSV = 79%. Six patients failed to return to their sport. Eighty-seven percent of the cohort returned to their sport, with a mean time to return of 7.25 months. Patients who experienced recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart had a younger age at primary dislocation (P = 0.0005) and lower ASES (P = 0.0056) and WOSI scores (0.00132) at latest follow-up, compared to those who remained stable postsurgery.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Bankart procedure has a high rate of recurrence of dislocation in Irish collision sport athletes. The current international literature suggests that the arthroscopic Bankart has similar rates of recurrence to the open procedure in collision athletes; however, this may not hold true for Irish collision sport athletes. Further research is required to determine the optimum surgical procedure for anterior shoulder instability in this population, particularly those patients with subcritical bone loss.

Clinical Outcomes, Survivorship, and Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Capsular Repair With Suture Anchors for Adolescent Multidirectional Shoulder Instability: Results at 6-Year Follow-up

Background:

Multidirectional shoulder instability (MDI) refractory to rehabilitation can be treated with arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction with suture anchors. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have reported on outcomes or examined the risk factors that contribute to poor outcomes in adolescent athletes.

Purpose:

To identify risk factors for surgical failure by comparing anatomic, clinical, and demographic variables in adolescents who underwent intervention for MDI.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

All patients 20 years or younger who underwent arthroscopic shoulder surgery at a single institution between January 2009 and April 2017 were evaluated. MDI was defined by positive drive-through sign on arthroscopy plus positive sulcus sign and/or multidirectional laxity on anterior and posterior drawer tests while under anesthesia. A 2-year minimum follow-up was required, but those whose treatment failed earlier were also included. Demographic characteristics and intraoperative findings were recorded, as were scores on the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Pediatric and Adolescent Shoulder Survey (PASS), and short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH).

Results:

Overall, 42 adolescents (50 shoulders; 31 female, 19 male) were identified as having undergone surgical treatment for MDI with minimum 2-year follow-up or failure. The mean follow-up period was 6.3 years (range, 2.8-10.2 years). Surgical failure, defined as recurrence of subluxation and instability, was noted in 13 (26.0%) shoulders; all underwent reoperation at a mean of 1.9 years (range, 0.8-3.2 years). None of the anatomic, clinical, or demographic variables tested, or the presence of generalized ligamentous laxity, was associated with subjective outcomes or reoperation. Number of anchors used was not different between shoulders that failed and those that did not fail. Patients reported a mean SANE score of 83.3, PASS score of 85.0, and QuickDASH score of 6.8. Return to prior level of sport occurred in 56% of patients.

Conclusion:

Adolescent MDI refractory to nonsurgical management appeared to have long-term outcomes after surgical intervention that were comparable with outcomes of adolescent patients with unidirectional instability. In patients who experienced failure of capsulorrhaphy, results showed that failure most likely occurred within 3 years of the index surgical treatment.

The Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: State of the Art in 2020: Decision-making and Operative Technique

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is prevalent among young athletes, and recurrent dislocations can result in compromised upper extremity function, increasing glenohumeral bone loss, and ultimately, posttraumatic arthritis. Although management algorithms have evolved in response to contemporary data and technical innovation, the arthroscopic Bankart repair continues to be a mainstay for the primary surgical management of first-time or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with marginal attritional glenoid bone loss (ie, <10% to 15%) and/or "on track" Hill-Sachs defects. The advantages of arthroscopic stabilization include its minimally invasive technique, high cost effectiveness, and relatively low recurrence rates and propensity for perioperative complications. The current article reviews contemporary indications/contraindications, management of the first-time dislocator, critical glenoid bone loss, surgical technique, and reported clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic Bankart repair.

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.

The Evaluation and Management of the Failed Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Primary arthroscopic Bankart repair is a common procedure that is increasing in popularity; however, failure rates can approach up to 6% to 30%. Factors commonly attributed to failure include repeat trauma, poor or incomplete surgical technique, humeral and/or glenoid bone loss, hyperlaxity, or a failure to identify and address rare pathology such as a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. A thorough clinical and radiographic assessment may provide insight into the etiology, which can assist the clinician in making treatment recommendations. Surgical management of a failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair without bone loss can include revision arthroscopic repair or open repair; however, in the setting of bone loss, the anterior-inferior glenoid can be reconstructed using a coracoid transfer, tricortical iliac crest, or structural allograft, whereas posterolateral humeral head bone loss (the Hill-Sachs defect) can be addressed with remplissage, structural allograft, or partial humeral head implant. In addition to the technical demands of revision stabilization surgery, patient and procedure selection to optimize outcomes can be challenging. This review will focus on the etiology, evaluation, and management of patients after a failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair, including an evidence-based treatment algorithm.

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

Background

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

Purpose

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

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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 stabilisation for shoulder instability

Since its first description over 30 years ago arthroscopic stabilisation has evolved. With improvements in knowledge, surgical techniques and materials technology, arthroscopic bankart repair has become the most widely used method for treating patients with symptomatic anterior shoulder instability. These procedures are typically performed in a younger, high demand patient population after a primary dislocation or to treat recurrent instability. A thorough clinical evaluation is required in the clinic setting not only to fully understand the injury pattern but also consider patient expectations prior to embarking on surgery. Diagnostic imaging will aid the clinician in determining the soft tissue pathology as well as assessing bone loss, which facilitates surgical decision-making. Selected patients may benefit from adjunctive procedures such as a remplissage for an "engaging" Hill-sachs lesion. This review will focus on the indications, pre-operative considerations, surgical techniques and outcomes of arthroscopic stabilisation.

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.

[Recurrent instability and instability arthropathy]

Capsulolabral reconstruction (Bankart repair) is recommended as the first line treatment in young and functionally demanding active patients with anteroinferior shoulder instability, due to the high tendency to recurrent dislocation. This has become established both for arthroscopic and open primary shoulder stabilization with good clinical outcome; nevertheless, recurrence of dislocation is reported in up to 25% of patients. Risk factors for failed surgery are patient (e.g. young age, male gender and contact sports) and surgery (e.g. primarily underestimated glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs lesion, non-treatment of bipolar defects or malpositioned anchors) related. In the management of recurrent instability, it is necessary to carry out a thorough clinical investigation in addition to extended diagnostics with X‑ray and computed tomography. A second Bankart repair is only indicated in patients with low demands and without any glenoid bone loss. In the majority of patients, bony augmentation of the glenoid is necessary and realized by coracoid or iliac crest bone block transfer. The Latarjet procedure is biomechanically advantageous due to the additional sling effect of the conjoined tendons and both techniques show good clinical outcomes and a low recurrence rate. Furthermore, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions also require additional treatment. Remplissage of the infraspinatus muscle, iliac crest bone block transfer and partial joint replacement are viable options. A final consensus for treatment of Hill-Sachs lesions has yet to be defined. Dislocation arthropathy is an underestimated complication as a result of frequent recurrent dislocations. After development of dislocation arthropathy, patients reported a painful restriction of range of motion rather than instability. Arthroscopic arthrolysis and comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM procedure) are possible joint-preserving treatment options.

Failure following arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anteroinferior instability of the shoulder: is a glenoid labral articular disruption (GLAD) lesion a risk factor for recurrent instability?

BACKGROUND

Recurrent instability is a frequent complication following arthroscopic Bankart repair. The purpose of this study was to investigate risk factors for poor patient-reported clinical outcome scores and failure rates.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at least 2 years earlier were included. Preoperative and postoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; and satisfaction scores were collected. The relationship of the following factors with outcomes and failure rates was assessed: (1) previous arthroscopic stabilization, (2) 3 or more dislocations prior to surgery, (3) glenoid labral articular disruption (GLAD) lesion, (4) concurrent superior labral anterior-to-posterior tear repair, and (5) concurrent biceps tenodesis.

RESULTS

The study included 72 patients with a median age of 23 years (range, 14-49 years). Subsequent revision was required in 9 (12.5%); 1 additional patient (1.4%) had recurrent dislocation. Outcome data were available at a median follow-up of 3 years (range, 2-9 years). All scores significantly improved from preoperatively to postoperatively (P <.05); the mean patient satisfaction score was 9, with a median of 10 (range, 1-10). None of the analyzed factors were associated with worse postoperative outcome scores. GLAD lesions were significantly associated with a higher rate of failure (P = .007). No other analyzed factors had a significant association with failure rates (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anteroinferior shoulder instability had excellent outcomes, even in the context of previous arthroscopic stabilization surgery, 3 or more dislocations prior to surgery, concurrent superior labral anterior-to-posterior tear repair, or concurrent biceps tenodesis. However, GLAD lesions were associated with higher rates of failure, and the presence of a GLAD lesion may herald the presence of changes in the articular version or other as-yet-undetermined factors that could predispose patients to failure.

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.

Shoulder Instability: Common Problems and Solutions

Operative treatment of the unstable shoulder historically has a high success rate. However, the complication rate has risen. This article reviews the pearls and pitfalls to attempt to elucidate the etiology for these complications and failures. Preoperative assessment of the unstable shoulder ultimately is critical to avoid complications, including history, physical examination, and key radiographic features. Intraoperative techniques include appropriate soft tissue mobilization, multiple points of fixation, avoidance of hardware-related problems, and appropriate management of the capsule and bone defects. Finally, postoperative rehabilitation is equally important to regain physiologic range of motion in a safe, supervised fashion.

[Diagnostics and treatment concepts for anteroinferior shoulder instability : Current trends]

Shoulder instability arises when static or dynamic stabilizers deviate from the natural equilibrium. The most common form of shoulder instability is in an anteroinferior direction, affects young athletes in contact sports and can lead to permanent impairment of shoulder function and early degeneration of the joint. Conservative as well as operative therapy options have been controversially discussed for years. This article describes the current state of diagnostics, current trends in therapy decisions and relevant therapy options for anterior shoulder instability.

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

A multicenter study to evaluate subscapularis muscle function using 5:30 o'clock portal for antero-inferior shoulder stabilization

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome after arthroscopic antero-inferior shoulder stabilization with and without using a 5:30 o'clock portal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients [age (mean ± SD), 28.05 ± 8.25 years] with a mean follow-up of 15.23 ± 5.02 months were included in this study. Thirty-one patients underwent arthroscopic antero-inferior shoulder stabilization using the 5:30 o'clock portal in center A (group I) and were compared to 31 matched patients managed with the 3 o'clock portal in center B (group II). Physical examination, standard shoulder scores, ultrasound assessment and subscapularis strength measurement were used to evaluate postoperative shoulder function.

RESULTS

Good to excellent results were seen in both groups. No significant differences were seen when comparing ASES, Constant and Rowe Score of both groups. Patients of group II achieved a significant higher score in the SST than patients of group I. (p < 0.05) Patients of group I had a significantly lesser loss of passive external rotation in 0° and 90° of abduction. (p = 0.04; p = 0.056) Ultrasound evaluation and strength measurement showed no significant differences in subscapularis muscle integrity or function neither between the involved and uninvolved shoulder nor between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic anterior-inferior shoulder stabilization results in excellent clinical results. When considering portal placement, the deep trans-subscapularis portal allows a more precise suture anchor placement at the inferior glenoid rim and capsular shift with a significant improved external rotation but does not negatively affect the subscapularis function in terms of internal rotation strength or structural integrity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Outcomes of Bankart Repairs Using Modern Arthroscopic Technique in an Athletic Population

PURPOSE

To report a large number of highly active patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at our institution over the last decade.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent primary and revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs using bioabsorbable anchors was performed. Outcome measures included recurrence of dislocation, American Shoulder and Elbow Scores (ASES), Rowe, visual analog scale (VAS), return to sports, and satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

A total of 94 shoulders met the inclusion criteria. The recurrence rate was 6/94 (6.4%) at a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 3 to 8.3). The mean postoperative scores were as follows: ASES = 91.5/100; Rowe = 84.3/100; VAS = 0.8/10; satisfaction = 8.8/10. In those who attempted to return to sports, 82.5% were able to return to the same level of competition. Statistical analyses revealed a significant increase in risk of recurrence among high school and recreational athletes. No recurrences were observed among professional or college-level athletes. No significant difference in recurrence rates was observed in regards to age, time to surgery, type of athlete (collision v limited contact), repair of SLAP lesion, number of anchors, or revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several repair techniques exist for traumatic anterior shoulder instability, arthroscopic repair remains a viable option even in a highly active patient population. This study uniquely identified high school and recreational athletes at higher risk for recurrence. This is perhaps due to inferior shoulder development and technique as well as to limited access to postoperative physical therapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Evaluation and treatment of failed shoulder instability procedures

Management of the unstable shoulder after a failed stabilization procedure can be difficult and challenging. Detailed understanding of the native shoulder anatomy, including its static and dynamic restraints, is necessary for determining the patient’s primary pathology. In addition, evaluation of the patient’s history, physical exam, and imaging is important for identifying the cause for failure after the initial procedure. Common mistakes include under-appreciation of bony defects, failure to recognize capsular laxity, technical errors, and missed associated pathology. Many potential treatment options exist for revision surgery, including open or arthroscopic Bankart repair, bony augmentation procedures, and management of Hill Sachs defects. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss in-depth the common risk factors for post-surgical failure, components for appropriate evaluation, and the different surgical options available for revision stabilization.

Level of evidence Level V.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair: Have we finally reached a gold standard?

Traditionally, surgical stabilization of the unstable shoulder has been performed through an open incision. Arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors is now widely considered the treatment of choice for anterior shoulder instability in patients who have failed conservative management. Many different factors have now been elucidated for adequate treatment of glenohumeral instability. Because of technical advances in instability repair combined with an increased understanding of factors that lead to recurrent instability, the outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have significantly improved and approach those of open techniques.

Long-term effects on subscapularis integrity and function following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization with a low anteroinferior (5:30 o'clock) portal

PURPOSE

The use of a low anteroinferior (5:30 o'clock) portal for arthroscopic shoulder stabilization allows an anatomical refixation of the capsulolabral complex. This anteroinferior portal, however, penetrates the inferior subscapularis (SSC), which is criticized. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the functional and structural properties of the SSC in patients with anteroinferior shoulder stabilization. The hypothesis was that it does not harm the SSC by demonstrating full muscular function and imaging-based normal structure at a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Twenty patients were examined (14 males and six females; mean age 37.0 years) retrospectively after a mean follow-up of 9.6 years. At final follow-up, clinical examination and clinical scores (ASES, Constant-Murley, WOSI, and Rowe score) were documented. Additionally, SSC strength was evaluated with a custom-made electronic force measurement plate. All patients underwent bilateral magnetic resonance imaging to assess structural integrity and fatty infiltration (grading according to Fuchs et al.) of the SSC. Furthermore, vertical and transversal (superior and inferior) diameters of the muscle and the muscle area in a parasagittal plane were measured.

RESULTS

Clinical scores revealed good-to-excellent long-term results (ASES 92 points, Constant-Murley 82 points, WOSI 85 %, and Rowe 84 points). Force measurement in comparison with the contralateral side showed no significant (p > 0.05) differences for the 'belly-press' test (ipsilateral 102 N vs. contralateral 101 N) and the 'lift-off' test (73 vs. 69 N). There were also no significant differences between the mean diameters and the areas of the SSC muscle belly (vertical diameter ipsilateral 92 mm vs. contralateral 94 mm; superior transversal 28 vs. 29 mm; inferior transversal 34 vs. 34 mm; area 2336 vs. 2526 mm(2)).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic labral repair with a low anteroinferior portal demonstrates no signs of structural and functional impairment of the SSC after 9.6 year follow-up. For clinical relevance, the lower part of the SSC can be penetrated for an optimal anchor placement in shoulder instabilities or Bankart fractures without concerns of a negative long-term effect on the SSC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

Clinical outcomes following revision anterior shoulder arthroscopic capsulolabral stabilization

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally surgeons have treated failed shoulder instability with open capsulolabral repair. Despite improved instrumentation, technique and familiarity in shoulder arthroscopy, few studies have reported the outcomes of arthroscopic revision shoulder instability repair. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical outcomes in patients following revision shoulder arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral stabilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients (63 shoulders) with failure of primary instability repairs were treated with revision arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization at a mean follow-up of 46.9 ± 16.8 months (range 18-78). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog pain scale and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. In addition, patients were queried for recurrent instability events (subluxation or dislocation) or revision surgery.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, the mean postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability normalized score was 80.1 ± 18.7 (range 15.0-100). There were clinically significant improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores and ten-point visual analog scale for pain (P < 0.001). Recurrent instability occurred in 12 shoulders (19.0 %), with number of prior surgeries and hyperlaxity found to be significant risk factor for failure (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroscopic anterior stabilization of the shoulder can result in satisfactory outcomes in appropriately selected patients who have failed previous capsulolabral repair. An increased number of prior surgeries and hyperlaxity are predictive of poor outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series, LOE IV.

Open Latarjet procedure for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study assessed the functional results of open Latarjet operation for recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair in a consecutive series of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty two patients (mean age 28.4 [range 17-62] years, 45 men) were operated on using open Latarjet operation after one (n=46) or two (n=6) failed arthroscopic Bankart repairs. The indication for revision surgery was recurrent dislocation or subluxation. Fifty patients had a Hill-Sachs lesion and 32 patients had glenoid bone lesions on plain radiographs. No attempt was made to grade the severity of bony pathology. Functional outcome and stability of 49 shoulders were assessed after an average follow-up of 38 (range 24-85) months using Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, Oxford shoulder instability score, and subjective shoulder value (SSV).

RESULTS

Forty-two patients had a stable shoulder at follow-up. Seven of 49 (14%) had symptoms of instability; one patient had recurrent dislocation, and six patients had subluxations. Mean WOSI, Oxford, and SSV scores were 83.9, 19.9, and 84.9, respectively. All scores were significantly better in patients who had a stable shoulder compared with those who had an unstable shoulder (WOSI 86.8 vs. 64.3; Oxford 18.2 vs. 30.8; and SSV 88.3 vs. 61.7; P<0.01). One patient needed a reoperation. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Open Latarjet operation is a good option for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. The instability recurrence rate is acceptable and the reoperation rate was low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Results of revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery in adolescent athletes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine failure rates, functional outcomes, and risk factors for failure after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery in high-risk adolescent athletes.

METHODS

Adolescent athletes who underwent primary anterior shoulder stabilization were reviewed. Patients undergoing subsequent revision stabilization surgery were identified and analyzed. Failure rates after revision surgery were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Failure was defined as recurrent instability requiring reoperation. Functional outcomes included the Marx activity score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; and University of California, Los Angeles score. The characteristics of patients who required reoperation for recurrent instability after revision surgery were compared with those of patients who required only a single revision to identify potential risk factors for failure.

RESULTS

Of 90 patients who underwent primary anterior stabilization surgery, 15 (17%) had failure and underwent revision surgery (mean age, 16.6 years; age range, 14 to 18 years). The mean follow-up period was 5.5 years (range, 2 to 12 years). Of the 15 revision patients, 5 (33%) had recurrent dislocations and required repeat revision stabilization surgery at a mean of 50 months (range, 22 to 102 months) after initial revision. No risk factors for failure were identified. The Kaplan-Meier reoperation-free estimates were 86% (95% confidence interval, 67% to 100%) at 24 months and 78% (95% confidence interval, 56% to 100%) at 48 months after revision surgery. The mean final Marx activity score was 14.8 (range, 5 to 20); American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 82.1 (range, 33 to 100); and University of California, Los Angeles score, 30.8 (range, 16 to 35).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5.5 years' follow-up, adolescent athletes had a high failure rate of revision stabilization surgery and modest functional outcomes. We were unable to convincingly identify specific risk factors for failure of revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective therapeutic case series.

Restoration of joint congruency and the glenoidal labrum after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair: a MRI match-paired analysis comparing primary Bankart repair and the uninjured labrum

PURPOSE

The restoration of joint congruency and labrum slope and height after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (RB) compared to the primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (PB) remain unclear.

METHODS

Twenty-three consecutive patients after RB with minor glenoid deficits were matched to 23 patients after PB and retrospectively followed by a score system and native 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment. Bankart repair surgeries were performed using double-loaded knotless suture anchors. The glenoidal (GAA) and labral articulation arc (LAA), labrum slope, height index and morphology were assessed separately for the anterior and inferior glenoid and compared to 23 healthy volunteers [radiologic control group (RC)].

RESULTS

Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair showed 28.0 months post-operative equivalent anterior labral congruency (LAA, 9.3°/PB 9.9°/RC 10.1°) and inferior (LAA 9.9°/PB 9.6°/RC 10.5°). The anterior GAA remain decreased (54.6°/PB 55.7°/RC 58.0°) with an original inferior GAA (85.1°/PB 83.2°/RC 83.8°). The RB labrum was slightly decreased anteriorly (slope 22.9°/PB 23.9°/RC 24.6°; height index 2.4/PB 3.0/RC 3.2). The inferior portion had an equivalent labrum slope (23.8°/PB 24.7°/RC 25.1°), but a decreased height index (2.1/PB 2.2/RC 2.3). Morphologic labrum analysis revealed significant changes between all three groups. The clinical outcome after revision surgery was good-to-excellent, but inferior to the primary stabilization and without influence of joint congruency and labrum morphology to the clinical outcome.

CONCLUSION

A properly applied arthroscopic revision of a Bankart repair generates sufficient restoration of the anteroinferior labral joint congruency and good clinical results.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series.

Recurrent instability after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of revision anterior stabilization surgeries based on technique. This study also sought to compare the impact of bone defects on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus was performed in July 2012 and March 2013. Of 345 articles identified in the search, 17 studies with Level I to IV Evidence satisfied the inclusion criteria and were analyzed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Recurrent instability was defined as redislocation, resubluxation, or a positive apprehensive test after revision surgery. Procedures were categorized as arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Bankart repair, Bristow-Latarjet procedure, and other open procedures.

RESULTS

In total, 388 shoulders were studied. Male patients comprised 74.1% of patients, 66.7% of cases involved the dominant shoulder, the mean age was 28.2 years, and the mean follow-up period was 44.2 months. The surgical procedures classified as "other open procedures" had the highest rate of recurrent instability (42.7%), followed by arthroscopic Bankart repair (14.7%), the Bristow-Latarjet procedure (14.3%), and open Bankart repair (5.5%). Inconsistent reporting of bone defects precluded drawing significant conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of different procedures are used to address recurrent instability after a primary operation for anterior shoulder instability has failed. There is significant variability in the rate of recurrent instability after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

Failed anterior shoulder stabilization procedures have traditionally been treated with open procedures. Recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have allowed for certain failed stabilization procedures to be treated by arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles on revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Key words included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies comprising 349 patients. All studies were retrospective (1 Level II study and 15 Level IV studies). The mean incidence of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 12.7%, and the mean follow-up period was 35.4 months. The most common cause for failure of the primary surgeries was a traumatic injury (62.1%), and 85.1% of patients returned to playing sports. The reasons for failure of revision cases included glenohumeral bone loss, hyperlaxity, and return to contact sports.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper patient selection, the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair appear similar to those of revision open Bankart repair. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Management of the athlete with a failed shoulder instability procedure

The athlete with a failed instability procedure requires a thoughtful and systematic approach to achieve a good outcome. Goals of treatment should be defined and realistic expectations should be set. Revision stabilization has a high rate of recurrent instability, low rates of return to play, and low clinical outcome scores. Fundamental to successful revision surgery is choosing the correct procedure. The decision is straightforward in athletes with clear factors that predict recurrence (significant glenoid bone loss, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions) because only a bony procedure can restore the articular arc of the glenoid. Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair may be appropriate in those athletes who have an obvious Bankart tear and no bone loss after a traumatic reinjury. The challenge for the shoulder surgeon is identifying the best surgery for the athlete who does not have such clear-cut indications. Each factor that has the potential to lead to a poor outcome needs to be collected and calculated. Patient factors (age, laxity, type and level of sport), injury factors (mechanism of injury, capsulolabral injury, glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs lesion), and technical factors (previous surgery performed, integrity of repair, scarring) must be integrated into the treatment algorithm. Based on this collection of factors, the shoulder surgeon should be prepared to provide the athlete with the surgery that provides the best chance to return to playing sports and the lowest risk of recurrent instability.

Outcomes of two surgical revision techniques for recurrent anterior shoulder instability following selective capsular repair

INTRODUCTION

Conventional capsulolabral reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability fails with recurrent instability in up to 23% of cases. Few studies have evaluated surgical revision strategies and outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes in a homogeneous series of surgical revisions after selective capsular repair (SCR).

HYPOTHESIS

Observed anatomic lesions can guide the choice between repeat SCR and coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2005 to January 2009, 11 patients with trauma-related recurrent anterior shoulder instability (episodes of subluxation and/or dislocation) after SCR were included. Mean age was 31 years (range, 19-45 years). At revision, a glenoid bony defect was present in six patients. Repeat SCR was performed in five patients and coracoid transfer in six patients.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 40 months (range, 24-65 months), no patient had experienced further episodes of instability. However, four patients had a positive apprehension test. External rotation decreased significantly by more than 20° after both techniques. The Simple Shoulder Test, Walch-Duplay, and Rowe scores were 10.5, 79, and 85, respectively. No patient had a subscapularis tear. Of these 11 patients, nine were able to resume their sporting activities and eight reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the subjective outcome. Radiographs showed fibrous non-union of the coracoid transfer in one patient.

CONCLUSION

In patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after SCR, repeat SCR and coracoid transfer produce similarly satisfactory outcomes. The size of the glenoid bone defect may be the best criterion for choosing between these two procedures. However, open revision surgery may decrease the range of motion, most notably in external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Revision Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Introduction

Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction via the anteroinferior 5:30 portal allows secure placement of the suture anchors in the lower half of the glenoid and adequate retensioning of the inferior glenohumeral ligament.

Step 1 Examination Under Anesthesia

With the patient under anesthesia, and prior to surgical intervention, assess the direction of glenohumeral instability and the presence of joint hyperlaxity to confirm the repair strategy preoperatively and to determine if additional procedures such as rotator interval closure or inferior capsular plications are needed.

Step 2 Arthroscopic Evaluation and Portal Placement

Underestimating the anteroinferior bone loss is one of the most common failures of arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repairs.

Step 3 Mobilization of Capsulolabral Complex

Mobilize the capsulolabral complex down to the 6:00 position with a bent rasp to create a bleeding surface for biological healing.

Step 4 Anchor Placement

Place anchors at 5:30, 4:30, and 3:00, with additional anchors in the inferior half of the glenoid if more capsular material has to be shifted.

Step 5 Capsulolabral Shift and Knot Tying

A sufficient capsular shift of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament at the lowest fixation point (5:30 anchor) is a key step of the procedure.

Step 6 Additional Tissue Reconstruction

Consider performing a rotator interval closure in patients with joint hyperlaxity or if a residual "drive through" sign with inferior instability remains after retensioning of the capsulolabral structures.

Step 7 Rehabilitation

Start with passive exercises and increase to active-assisted and active exercises.

Results

In our study of fifty-six patients treated with arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, arthroscopic evaluation at the revision repair showed glenoid bone loss measuring up to 10% of the inferior glenoid width due to compression fracture of the glenoid rim in almost 50% of the cases and glenoid bone loss measuring 10% to 20% in about 20% of the cases.

What to Watch For

IndicationsContraindicationsPitfalls & Challenges.