Bone Fragment Resorption and Clinical Outcomes of Traumatic Bony Bankart Lesion Treated With Arthroscopic Repair Versus Open Latarjet

Minimum 10-year clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic bony Bankart bridge for the treatment of bony Bankart lesions

BACKGROUND

Shoulder dislocations may lead to anterior glenoid rim fractures. An all-arthroscopic double-row repair, referred to as the bony Bankart bridge (BBB), has been proposed with superior biomechanical properties when compared to single-row repair techniques. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the minimum 10-year clinical and functional outcomes following BBB.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic BBB for the treatment of shoulder instability with an associated bony Bankart lesion by a single surgeon between December 2007 and February 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Preoperatively and minimum 10 years postoperatively, patient-reported outcome measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary, satisfaction with the postoperative result [1-10 scale with "10" indicating maximum satisfaction], and visual analog scale for pain), return to sport rates, and instability recurrence and revision surgery rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (100% male) with a mean age at the time of surgery of 48.0 (interquartile range: 31.0-62.0) years were evaluated 14.0 (11.0-14.0) years postoperatively. At long-term follow-up, significant improvements in shoulder function (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score: 74.9 [30.8-90.8] vs. 100 [98.3-100], P < .001; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand: 13.6 [10.0-63.6] vs. 0.0 [0.0-6.8], P = .002; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation: 50.0 [19.0-90.0] vs. 96.0 [89.0-99.0], P = .002) and physical health (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary: 44.1 [35.1-55.7] vs. 57.3 [56.5-58.5], P < .001) were observed. Median satisfaction with the postoperative outcome was high (10 [5.0-10]). Pain levels were low (visual analog scale for pain: 0 [0-0]). Ten patients reported their postoperative sporting activity level with the majority patients reporting sporting activity levels equal to or above (70.0%) their preinjury level. One patient (9.1%) reported a shoulder redislocation during follow-up. No patients underwent further surgery for instability or post-traumatic osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic BBB for patients with bony Bankart lesions is associated with excellent shoulder function, low pain levels, and high return to sport rates at long-term follow-up. One patient suffered a shoulder redislocation, but did not require revision surgery. No patients underwent further surgery for post-traumatic osteoarthritis during follow-up.

Modified double-pulley fixation provides better reduction of bone fragments and union compared to single-point fixation in bony Bankart lesions

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical scores and imaging outcomes of bony Bankart lesions that underwent single-point and modified double-pulley fixation after at least 2 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery to treat bony Bankart injuries were included and divided into groups A and B. A total of 69 patients were included (32 in group A and 37 in group B). Patients in group A underwent arthroscopic modified double-pulley fixation and patients in group B underwent arthroscopic single-point fixation. Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) was used to assess glenoid reduction one day after surgery. Postoperative bony union was assessed using 3D-CT and multiplanar reconstruction images 6 months after surgery. Constant-Murley, Rowe rating system, visual analogue scale and University of California at Los Angeles and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were recorded before and after surgery.

RESULTS

In terms of imaging measurements, there was no significant group difference in the preoperative size of the glenoid defect, the size of the bony fragment or the expected postoperative size of the glenoid defect. The sizes of the actual postoperative glenoid defects differed significantly between the groups (p = 0.027), as did the absolute difference between the expected and actual glenoid defect sizes (p < 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, 50.0% of group A patients and 24.3% of group B patients exhibited complete bony union (p = 0.027); the rates of partial union were 37.5% and 56.8%, respectively. At the final follow-up, all clinical scores were significantly better than the preoperative scores (all p < 0.05), with no significant group differences (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the modified double-pulley technique with two anchors to treat bony Bankart injuries provides a better reduction of bone fragments than single-point fixation with two anchors and was associated with a higher rate of early bone union.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Postoperative Radiographic Outcomes Following Primary Open Coracoid Transfer (Bristow-Latarjet) Vary in Definition, Classification, and Imaging Modality: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To analyze radiographic outcomes by conventional radiography, computed tomography (CT), or both and complication rates of open coracoid transfer at a minimum of 12-months follow-up.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting on open Latarjet as the primary surgical procedure(revision coracoid transfer after failed prior stabilization excluded) with postoperative radiographic outcomes at a minimum mean 1-year follow-up. Patient demographics, type of postoperative imaging modality, and radiographic outcomes and complications including graft union, osteoarthritis, and osteolysis were systematically reviewed. Data were summarized as ranges of reported values for each outcome metric. Each radiographic outcome was graphically represented in a Forest plot with point estimates of the incidence of radiographic outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and I2.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 1,456 shoulders. The most common postoperative imaging modality was plain radiography only (n = 848 [58.2%]), both CT and radiography (n = 287 [19.7%]), and CT only (n = 321 [22.1%]). Overall, the reported graft union rate ranged from 75% to 100%, of which 79.8% (n = 395) were detected on plain radiography. The most common reported postoperative radiographic complications after the open coracoid transfer were osteoarthritis (range, 0%-100%, pooled mean 28%), graft osteolysis (range, 0%-100%, pooled mean 30%), nonunion (range, 0%-32%, pooled mean 5.1%), malpositioned graft (range, 0%-75%, pooled mean 14.75%), hardware issues (range, 0%-9.1%, pooled mean 5%), and bone block fracture (range, 0%-8%, pooled mean 2.1%). Graft healing was achieved in a majority of cases (range, 75%-100%).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative radiographic outcomes after open coracoid transfer vary greatly in definition, classification, and imaging modality of choice. Greater consistency in postoperative radiographic outcomes is essential to evaluate graft healing, osteolysis, and nonunion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Arthroscopic Latarjet yields better union and prevention of instability compared to arthroscopic bony Bankart repair in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure or arthroscopic bony Bankart repair provide better outcomes in terms of rates of recurrent instability, non-union and complications, as well as clinical scores and range of motion.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane databases, applying the following keywords: "Arthroscopic bony Bankart" OR "Arthroscopic osseous Bankart" AND "Arthroscopic Latarjet" OR "Arthroscopic coracoid bone block".

RESULTS

The systematic search returned 1465 records, of which 29 were included (arthroscopic bony Bankart repair, n = 16; arthroscopic Latarjet, n = 13). 37 datasets were included for data extraction, on 1483 shoulders. Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair had significantly higher instability rates (0.14; CI 0.10-0.18; vs 0.04; CI 0.02-0.06), significantly lower union rates (0.63; CI 0.28-0.91 vs 0.98; CI 0.93-1.00), and significantly lower pain on VAS (0.42; CI 0.17-0.67 vs 1.17; CI 0.96-1.38). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid bone loss, follow-up, complication rate, ROWE score, ASES score, external rotation, and anterior forward elevation between arthroscopic Latarjet and arthroscopic bony Bankart repair.

CONCLUSION

Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair results in significantly (i) higher rates of recurrent instability (14% vs 4%), (ii) lower union rates (63% vs 98%), but (iii) slightly lower pain on VAS (0.45 vs 1.17). There were no differences in complication rates, clinical scores, or postoperative ranges of motion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The prevalence of shoulders with a large glenoid defect and small bone fragment increases after several instability events during conservative treatment for traumatic anterior instability

Background

Unstable shoulders with a large glenoid defect and small bone fragment are at higher risk for postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair. The purpose of the present study was to clarify the changes in the prevalence of such shoulders during conservative treatment for traumatic anterior instability.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 114 shoulders that underwent conservative treatment and computed tomography (CT) examination at least twice after an instability event in the period from July 2004 to December 2021. We investigated the changes in glenoid rim morphology, glenoid defect size, and bone fragment size from the first to the final CT.

Results

At first CT, 51 shoulders showed no glenoid bone defect, 12 showed glenoid erosion, and 51 showed a glenoid bone fragment [33 small bone fragment (<7.5%) and 18 large bone fragment (≥7.5%); mean size: 4.9 ± 4.2% (0-17.9%)]. Among patients with glenoid defect (fragment and erosion), the mean glenoid defect was 5.4 ± 6.6% (0-26.6%); 49 were considered a small glenoid defect (<13.5%) and 14 were a large glenoid defect (≥13.5%). While all 14 shoulders with large glenoid defect had a bone fragment, small fragment was solely seen in 4 shoulders. At final CT, 23 of the 51 shoulders persisted without glenoid defect. The number of shoulders presenting glenoid erosion increased from 12 to 24, and the number of shoulders with bone fragment increased from 51 to 67 [36 small bone fragment and 31 large bone fragment; mean size: 5.1 ± 4.9% (0-21.1%)]. The prevalence of shoulders with no or a small bone fragment did not increase from first CT (71.4%) to final CT (65.9%; P = .488), and the bone fragment size did not decrease (P = .753). The number of shoulders with glenoid defect increased from 63 to 91 and the mean glenoid defect significantly increased to 9.9 ± 6.6% (0-28.4%) (P < .001). The number of shoulders with large glenoid defect increased from 14 to 42 (P < .001). Of these 42 shoulders, 19 had no or a small bone fragment. Accordingly, among a total of 114 shoulders, the increase from first to final CT in the prevalence of a large glenoid defect accompanied by no or a small bone fragment was significant [4 shoulders (3.5%) vs. 19 shoulders (16.7%); P = .002].

Conclusions

The prevalence of shoulders with a large glenoid defect and small bone fragment increases significantly after several instability events.

New bone formation after arthroscopic Bankart repair for unstable shoulders with an erosion-type glenoid defect

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate new bone formation after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the influence of new bone formation on recurrence in shoulders with an erosion-type glenoid defect.

METHODS

We analyzed data on shoulders with an erosion-type glenoid defect. Participants were patients who underwent computed tomography to evaluate new bone formation after ABR performed from 2004 to 2021 and were followed for a minimum of 2 years. We investigated the factors influencing new bone formation, in particular the presence of an intraoperative bone fragment, and the influence of new bone formation and its size on postoperative recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 100 shoulders were included. The mean glenoid defect size was 10.1% ± 6.3% (range, 1.2%-31.5%). New bone formed postoperatively in 15 shoulders (15.0%) and was seen in significantly more shoulders with an intraoperative bone fragment (11 of 18, 61.1%) than in those without a fragment (4 of 82, 4.9%; P < .001). Recurrence occurred in 22 shoulders (22.0%), and the rate of recurrence was not different between shoulders with new bone formation (3 of 15, 20.0%) and without new bone formation (19 of 85, 22.4%; P = .999). Among the 15 shoulders with new bone formation, the size of the new bone fragments relative to glenoid width was <5% in 2 shoulders, 5%-<7.5% in 8 shoulders, 7.5%-<10% in 3 shoulders, and ≥10% in 2 shoulders; in all 3 shoulders with postoperative recurrence, the relative size was <7.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in shoulders with an erosion-type glenoid defect, new bone may form after ABR, especially in shoulders with an intraoperative bone fragment. However, new bone formation does not decrease the rate of postoperative recurrence.

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

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