Comparison of Return to Sports and Competition After the Arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents With Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

The use of isolated soft tissue repair versus bone block stabilization for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in adolescents has no scientific evidence.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of adolescent patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart (iB) repair with those who underwent the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure in addition to Bankart (BLB) repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 60 shoulders in adolescents (aged 13-18 years) were reviewed with a minimum 2 years' follow-up: iB repair (n = 36) and arthroscopic Bankart repair with an additional Bristow-Latarjet procedure (BLB; n = 24). The characteristics of the patients in each group in terms of age at the first instability episode, age at surgery, hyperlaxity, participation in at-risk sports, and Instability Severity Index Score were comparable. The mean follow-up was longer in the iB group (7.7 vs 4.1 years, respectively), whereas the rates of patients engaged in competition and those with glenoid lesions were higher in the BLB group. The primary outcome measures were failure, defined as the recurrence of instability (clinical dislocation or subluxation), and return to sports. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (range, 2-16 years).

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, the rate of recurrence was significantly higher in the iB group, with 22% (8/36) failures, than in the BLB group, with 8% (2/24) instability recurrences (P < .05). The rate of return to sports at the same level was significantly higher after the BLB repair than after iB repair (79% vs 47%, respectively; P < .001). No statistical difference was found in patient-reported outcome scores between treatment groups (P > .05). Although failures occurred early after the BLB repair, 88% of failures after iB repair occurred after 2 years. On multivariate analysis, adolescents in the iB group with >3 episodes of preoperative dislocation and shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) had a 60% recurrence rate (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Adolescent patients undergoing the BLB repair had a lower rate of recurrent instability and higher rates of return to sports and competition than those undergoing iB repair. Patients with shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) and >3 dislocations had an unacceptable failure rate of 60% after iB repair.

Does previous arthroscopic Bankart repair influence coracoid graft osteolysis in Latarjet procedure? A case-control study with computed tomography scan data

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is commonly performed in the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability and is also indicated as a salvage procedure for recurrence after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Although this procedure has shown success, there has been an increased awareness of complications in recent studies, especially graft osteolysis. Most relevant research has focused on the pathophysiology, incidence, or location of graft osteolysis or the risk factors for graft osteolysis; however, the data are limited to primary Latarjet procedures. This study aimed to investigate the effect of previous arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery on coracoid bone graft osteolysis in the Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study analyzed data from patients who underwent primary Latarjet procedures or revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Clinical outcome measures included range of motion, the Subjective Shoulder Value, and the Rowe score. Volumetric analysis of each transferred coracoid graft was performed using early postoperative and late postoperative computed tomography scan data, and the amount of graft osteolysis was then calculated as the percentage of volume reduction of each graft.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study, with 24 patients in the primary Latarjet group (group I) and 8 patients in the revision Latarjet group (group II). The mean age of the patients was 32.5 ± 7.7 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 52.1 ± 8.9 months. Both study groups showed significant improvement in the Subjective Shoulder Value compared with baseline (P < .05). Comparison of postoperative clinical outcome measures showed no significant difference in any outcome parameter between the 2 study groups (P > .05). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. A positive apprehension sign was present in 6 patients (25%) in group I and 4 patients (50%) in group II (P > .05). Analysis of radiologic data revealed that all patients underwent some degree of graft osteolysis, with varying osteolysis ratios between 12% and 98%. The mean osteolysis ratio of the coracoid graft was 67.3% ± 22.6% in group I and 69.4% ± 25.6% in group II, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that a considerable amount of coracoid graft osteolysis is observed after both primary Latarjet procedures and revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair did not seem to have a significant influence on the amount of graft osteolysis, and both primary and revision Latarjet procedures showed satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Arthroscopic Stabilization Surgery for First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of first-time anterior shoulder dislocations (FTASDs) remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from inception to December 18, 2022, for single-arm or comparative studies assessing FTASDs managed with arthroscopic stabilization surgery following first time dislocation. Eligible comparative studies included studies assessing outcomes following immobilization for a FTASD, or arthroscopic stabilization following recurrent dislocations. Eligible levels of evidence were I to IV. Primary outcomes included rates of shoulder re-dislocations, cumulative shoulder instability as well as subsequent shoulder stabilization surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies with 2,222 shoulder dislocation were included. Of these, five studies (n=408 shoulders) were randomized trials comparing immobilization to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) after a first dislocation. Another 16 studies were non-randomized comparative studies assessing arthroscopic Bankart repair following first time dislocation (ABR-F) to either immobilization (studies=8, n=399 shoulders) or arthroscopic Bankart repair following recurrent dislocations (ABR-R) (studies=8, n=943 shoulder). Mean follow-up was 59.4±39.2 months across all studies. Cumulative loss to follow-up was 4.7% (range, 0%-32.7%). A composite rate of pooled re-dislocation, cumulative instability and re-operations across ABR-F studies was 6.8%, 11.2% and 6.1%, respectively. Meta-analysis found statistically significant reductions in rates of re-dislocation (OR 0.09, 95%CI 0.04-0.3, p=0.00), cumulative instability (OR 0.05, 95%CI 0.03-0.08, p=0.00), and subsequent surgery (OR 0.08, 95%CI 0.04-0.15, p=0.00) when comparing ABR-F to immobilization. Rates of cumulative instability (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.22-0.47, p=0.00) and subsequent surgery rates (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.09-0.76, p=0.01) were significantly reduced with ABR-F relative to ABR-R, with point estimate of effect favoring ABR-F for shoulder re-dislocation rates (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.19-1.83, p=0.36). RTS rates to preoperative levels or higher were 3.87 times higher following ABR-F compared to immobilization (95%CI 1.57-9.52, p=0.00), with limited ABR-R studies reporting this outcome. The median fragility index of the five included RCTs was 2 meaning reversing only 2 outcome events rendered the trials findings no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic stabilization surgery for FTASDs leads to lower rates of re-dislocations, cumulative instability, and subsequent stabilization surgery relative to immobilization or arthroscopic stabilization surgery following recurrence. While a limited number of RCTs have been published on the subject matter to date, the strength of their conclusions is limited by a small sample size and statistically fragile results.

Effect of Patient Characteristics on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

There is scarce literature on clinically significant values after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds at 1 year for the Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) scores after ABR and to determine the effect of patient characteristics on these metrics after ABR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing ABR from a single institution between January 2017 and January 2020 was performed. Patients with at least 1 episode of instability and a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: bony defects of >20% on the anteroinferior portion of the glenoid based on a preoperative computed tomography scan; engaging Hill-Sachs lesions at 90° of abduction and 90° of external rotation based on an arthroscopic examination; previous surgery on the same shoulder; multidirectional instability or concomitant repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; superior labral anterior to posterior lesions; posterior labral tears; or humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected both preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores. Distribution-based (one-half the standard deviation of the difference between pre- and postoperative outcome scores) and anchored-based approaches (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point, where sensitivity and specificity were maximized, and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 190 patients were included. The distribution-based MCID for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were calculated to be 8.2 and 8.7, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 96% for the Rowe and 96% for ASOSS scores. The PASS threshold for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were ≥80 and ≥90, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS scores after ABR were 86% and 83%, respectively. The MCID and PASS values showed great variability based on sex (men: 8.5 and ≥85 for Rowe / 8.9 and ≥90 for ASOSS, respectively, vs women: 6.7 and ≥73 for Rowe / 8.1 and ≥75 for ASOSS), age (≥21: 8.4 and ≥80 / 9.2 and ≥90 vs <21: 7.8 and ≥75 / 7.7 and ≥85), sports participation (sports: 8.8 and ≥85 / 9.5 and ≥90 vs no sports: 8.1 and ≥75 / 8.6 and ≥80), and type of athlete (competitive: 8.4 and ≥85 / 8.9 and ≥87 vs recreational: 7.5 and ≥73 / 8.1 and ≥68).

CONCLUSION

This study identified the MCID and PASS thresholds for the Rowe and ASOSS scores at 1 year after ABR. However, these values showed great variability when accounting for different patient characteristics such as sex, age, sports participation, and type of athlete, highlighting the importance of considering individual patient-specific characteristics for optimal treatment decision-making and ensuring treatment success tailored to each patient's unique needs and expectations.

Prognostic Factors associated with Failure to Return to Sport Following Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: a Retrospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Even though many studies have been published regarding return to sport (RTS) rates following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR), evidence regarding prognostic factors for which patient do not RTS is limited. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with failure to RTS and failure to RTPS following primary ABR. The hypotheses were that prognostic factors for failure to RTS and RTPS would be similar to those predisposing recurrence.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective case-control study including six Dutch hospitals was performed. Consecutive patients who underwent primary ABR between 2014 and 2019 were invited to participate and received a questionnaire. Sport participation was assessed pre-symptomatic, six months postoperatively, and at final follow-up. Failure to RTS was defined as no return to any sport, and failure to return to pre-injury level of sport (RTPS) was defined as no return to the same (or higher) level of sport. Prognostic factors for failure to RTS or failure to RTPS were identified using logistic regression. Covariates for the regression analysis were selected based on univariate analyses.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eighteen patients with a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (± 1.8 years) were included. Out of these 318 patients, 26 (8.2%) patients did not RTS, and 100 (31%) patients did not RTPS. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that glenoid bone loss (GBL) (OR, 1.09; CI, 1.04-1.15; p = .001) and overhead use of the shoulder during work (OR, 3.77; 95% CI, 1.45-9.85; p = .007) were prognostic factors for failure to RTS. In addition, it demonstrated that preoperative professional sports level (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.07-8.05; p=.04) and preoperative body mass index (BMI) (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; p=.04) were prognostic for failure to RTPS. Repair of a bony Bankart lesion (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; p=.02) or anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion (ALPSA) (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 1 0.20-0.97; p=.04) were identified as factors that facilitated RTPS.

CONCLUSION

This study identified GBL and overhead use of the shoulder during work to be associated with failure to RTS. Moreover, preoperative sports level and preoperative BMI were found to be associated with failure to RTPS. In contrast, a bony Bankart lesion and an ALPSA lesion facilitated a RTPS. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these factors and determine which part of the effect can be attributed to the (failure of) surgical treatment or changes in behavior.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Relationship of the SIRSI Score to Return to Sports After Surgical Stabilization of Glenohumeral Instability

BACKGROUND

Literature is scarce regarding the influence of psychological readiness on return to sports after shoulder instability surgery.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictive ability of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score in measuring the effect of psychological readiness on return to sports and to compare it between athletes who returned to sports and athletes who did not return to sports.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair or a Latarjet procedure between January 2019 and September 2020. Psychological readiness to return to play was evaluated using the SIRSI instrument. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were measured by the Rowe, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores. The predictive validity of the SIRSI was assessed by the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistics. The Youden index was calculated and used to determine a SIRSI score cutoff point that best discriminated psychological readiness to return to sports. A logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of psychological readiness on return to sports and return to preinjury sports level.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included in this study. Overall, 79% returned to sports. The SIRSI had excellent predictive ability for return-to-sport outcomes (return to sports: area under ROC curve, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.93]; return to preinjury sports level: area under ROC curve, 0.96; [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). A cutoff level of ≥55 was used to determine whether an athlete was psychologically ready to return to sports and to return to preinjury sports level (Youden index, 0.7 and 0.9, respectively). Of those who returned to sports, 76.8% were psychologically ready to return to play, with a median SIRSI score of 65 (interquartile range, 57-80). In comparison, in the group that did not return to sports, only 4.5% achieved psychological readiness with a median SIRSI score of 38.5 (interquartile range, 35-41) (P < .001). Regression analysis for the effect of SIRSI score on return to sports was performed. For every 10-point increase in the SIRSI score, the odds of returning to sports increased by 2.9 times. Moreover, those who did not achieve their preinjury sports level showed poorer psychological readiness to return to play and SIRSI score results.

CONCLUSION

The SIRSI was a useful tool for predicting whether patients were psychologically ready to return to sports after glenohumeral stabilization surgery. Patients who returned to sports and those who returned to their preinjury sports level were significantly more psychologically ready than those who did not return. Therefore, we believe that the SIRSI score should be considered along with other criteria that are used to decide whether the patient is ready to return to sports.

Return to sports, functional outcomes, and recurrences after arthroscopic Bankart repair in soccer players

BACKGROUND

There is a shortage of relevant reports about the results obtained after shoulder stabilization in soccer players. Therefore, this retrospective study aims to report return to sports, functional outcomes, and recurrences after arthroscopic Bankart repair in soccer players.

METHODS

A total of 156 soccer players were treated for anterior shoulder instability at a single institution between 2008 and 2017. The Rowe score and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System were used to assess functional outcomes. Return to sport and recurrence rates were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System scores showed statistical improvement after surgery (P < .001). Overall, 148 soccer players (94.8%) returned to sports, and 122 (78.2%) returned to the same level. The mean time to return to sport was 4.8 months. The recurrence rate was 5.2%.

DISCUSSION

Soccer players who underwent an arthroscopic isolated Bankart repair for anterior glenohumeral instability have shown remarkable outcomes, with most of the patients returning to sports, and at the same level they had before surgery with a low rate of recurrence.

Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulder Instability

Background:

The literature on minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures assessing shoulder instability is limited, with none addressing the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS). The OSIS was developed to provide a standardized method for assessing shoulder function after surgery for shoulder instability, and previous studies have demonstrated its high reliability, low interrater variability, and ease of administration.

Purpose:

To identify the MCID for the OSIS after arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A longitudinally maintained institutional registry was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2010 to 2016 for recurrent shoulder instability secondary to a Bankart lesion without significant glenoid bone loss. The OSIS was completed preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Patients were categorized into “expectations met” and “expectations unmet” groups using a questionnaire evaluating expectation fulfilment. The MCID of the OSIS at 1 year was calculated using 3 anchor-based approaches and a distribution-based approach. The 3 anchor-based approaches comprised (1) simple linear regression analysis, (2) receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and (3) calculation of mean differences in change for the OSIS between the “expectations met” and “expectations unmet” groups.

Results:

The study cohort comprised 68 men and 11 women aged 29.9 ± 12.7 years (mean ± SD). Duration of follow-up for all patients exceeded 1 year. The MCIDs for the OSIS based on the 4 calculation approaches yielded a narrow range of values, ranging from 7.7 to 8.5 for the anchor-based methods and 8.6 for the distribution-based method.

Conclusion:

Study results indicated that patients with recurrent shoulder instability without significant bone loss who undergo primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and have at least 8.6 points of improvement on their OSIS experience a clinically significant change at 1 year postoperatively.

Remaining Large Bone Fragment of a Bony Bankart Lesion in Shoulders With a Subcritical Glenoid Defect: Association With Recurrent Anterior Instability

BACKGROUND

A preoperative glenoid defect of 13.5% or larger is recognized as a subcritical glenoid defect at arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for collision/contact athletes or military personnel.

PURPOSE

To clarify the prevalence and size of remaining bone fragments in shoulders with a subcritical glenoid defect at recurrent anterior instability and to investigate the influence on postoperative recurrence after ABR for younger competitive athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The study included 96 shoulders with recurrent instability that underwent ABR between July 2011 and March 2018 for shoulders with a subcritical glenoid defect. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the glenoid defect size (13.5%-<20%, medium; ≥20%, large). The bone fragment size in each defect group was retrospectively investigated and classified into 4 groups (no, 0%; small, >0%-<5%; medium, 5%-<10%; large, ≥10%). The postoperative recurrence rate for each combination of glenoid defect size and bone fragment size was investigated for competitive athletes aged <30 years. The fragments, when present, were repaired to the glenoid.

RESULTS

The glenoid defect size was 13.5%-<20% in 60 shoulders (medium defect group) and ≥20% in 36 shoulders (large defect group). The mean bone fragment size was 6.7% ± 5.1% and 8.9% ± 4.9%, respectively (P = .042). In the medium defect group, there were 15 shoulders (25%) without a bone fragment, 6 shoulders (10%) with a small fragment, 23 shoulders (38.3%) with a medium fragment, and 16 shoulders (26.7%) with a large fragment. In the large defect group, the respective numbers were 2 shoulders (5.6%), 6 shoulders (16.7%), 14 shoulders (38.9%), and 14 shoulders (38.9%). A medium or large bone fragment was more common in the large defect group (P = .252). Among 64 younger competitive athletes who underwent ABR with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, postoperative recurrence was recognized in 7 of 38 (18.4%) athletes in the medium defect group, but it was not recognized in any of the 26 athletes in the large defect group (P = .036). Postoperative recurrence was recognized in 4 of 12 (33.3%) athletes with a small fragment or no fragment and in 3 of 52 (5.8%) athletes with a medium or large fragment (P = .019).

CONCLUSION

A larger bone fragment frequently remained in shoulders with a subcritical glenoid defect at recurrent instability. The postoperative recurrence rate after ABR for younger competitive athletes was low when a remaining larger bone fragment was repaired.

Scapular Dyskinesis, Shoulder Joint Position Sense, and Functional Level After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background:

Scapular kinesia is an important component of glenohumeral rhythm and shoulder stability. No studies have evaluated scapular dyskinesis and its relationship to shoulder proprioception in patients who have undergone arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

Purpose:

To investigate scapular dyskinesis, proprioception, and functional level after ABR.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

This study included 13 male patients who underwent ABR (ABR group; mean age, 30 years; range, 24-36 years) and 13 sex- and age-matched healthy individuals (control group). The age, height, weight, and dominant side of all participants were collected. Scapular dyskinesis was evaluated using the lateral scapular slide test and the scapular dyskinesis test; proprioception was measured by the active angle reproduction test using a smartphone goniometer application, and functional level was assessed using the upper-quarter Y-balance test for dynamic stability as well as the Rowe score and Walch-Duplay score for quality of life and return to activities of daily living.

Results:

The presence of static scapular dyskinesis in the neutral position, at 45° of abduction, and at 90° of abduction as well as the presence of dynamic scapular dyskinesis was higher in the ABR group compared with the control group (P ≤ .04 for all). Shoulder joint position sense (absolute error) at 40° and 100° of shoulder elevation and shoulder functional level according to the Rowe score were worse in the ABR patients compared with the healthy controls (P ≤ .02 for all). Dynamic scapular dyskinesis was negatively related to shoulder joint position sense at 40° of shoulder elevation (r = –0.64; P = .01). Static scapular movement as measured on the lateral scapular slide test was moderately related to the Rowe score (r = 0.58; P = .03).

Conclusion:

Scapular kinematics and proprioception should be evaluated after ABR. Treatment approaches to improve scapular control and proprioceptive sense should be included in the rehabilitation program for patients after ABR.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial With 15-Year Follow-up With an Assessment of the Glenoid Being "On-Track" and "Off-Track" as a Predictor of Failure

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have demonstrated equivalent short-term results when comparing arthroscopic versus open anterior shoulder stabilization. However, none have evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of patients after arthroscopic or open anterior shoulder stabilization, with inclusion of an assessment of preoperative glenoid tracking.

PURPOSE

To compare long-term clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability randomized to open and arthroscopic stabilization groups. Additionally, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were used to assess whether the shoulders were "on-track" or "off-track" to ascertain a prediction of increased failure risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 64 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were randomized to receive either arthroscopic or open stabilization by a single surgeon. Follow-up assessments were performed at minimum 15-year follow-up using established postoperative evaluations. Clinical failure was defined as any recurrent dislocation postoperatively or subjective instability. Preoperative MRI scans were obtained to calculate the glenoid track and designate shoulders as on-track or off-track. These results were then correlated with the patients' clinical results at their latest follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 64 patients, 60 (28 arthroscopic and 32 open) were contacted or examined for follow-up (range, 15-17 years). The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 years (range, 19-42 years), while the mean age at the time of this assessment was 40 years (range, 34-57 years). The rates of arthroscopic and open long-term failure were 14.3% (4/28) and 12.5% (4/32), respectively. There were no differences in subjective shoulder outcome scores between the treatment groups. Of the 56 shoulders, with available MRI studies, 8 (14.3%) were determined to be off-track. Of these 8 shoulders, there were 2 surgical failures (25.0%; 1 treated arthroscopically, 1 treated open). In the on-track group, 6 of 48 had failed surgery (12.5%; 3 open, 3 arthroscopic [P = .280]).

CONCLUSION

Long-term clinical outcomes were comparable at 15 years postoperatively between the arthroscopic and open stabilization groups. The presence of an off-track lesion may be associated with a higher rate of recurrent instability in both cohorts at long-term follow-up; however, this study was underpowered to verify this situation.

Return to sport and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic Bankart repair: a single-institution experience

Introduction:

Arthroscopic Bankart repair is a widely accepted procedure to treat recurrent shoulder dislocation. This study aims to describe our experience with arthroscopic Bankart repair and its functional outcome.

Methods:

107 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2008 to 2013 were followed up for a minimum of three years and reviewed by an independent observer. 80 consented to being interviewed using the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) and Simple Shoulder Test.

Results:

82 shoulders (two bilateral) were studied. Mean age at first dislocation was 19.4 ± 3.4 (12.0–31.0) years. Mean follow-up was 4.4 ± 1.3 (3.0–9.0) years and 2.5 ± 3.0 (0.1–15.4) years elapsed from first dislocation to surgery. 41 (50.0%) patients played overhead or contact sports and 44 (53.7%) played competitive sports before injury; 8 (9.8%) patients reported recurrence of dislocation, which was significantly associated with playing competitive sports before injury (p <0.039), 5 (6.1%) underwent revision surgery and 22 (26.8%) reported residual instability after surgery. 49 (59.8%) patients returned to playing sports, 75 (91.5%) were satisfied with their surgery and 79 (96.3%) were willing to undergo the surgery again. 74 (90.2%) patients had two-year good/excellent OSIS, which was significantly associated with playing competitive sports before injury (p = 0.039), self-reported stability after surgery (p = 0.017), satisfaction with surgery (p = 0.018) and willingness to undergo surgery again (p = 0.024).

Conclusion:

Arthroscopic Bankart repair yields good functional outcomes and is associated with high patient satisfaction, although not all patients return to sports.

Preoperative and postoperative shoulder position sense in patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic shoulder joint instability

Background

Proprioceptive feedback is a reflex dislocation prevention mechanism that contributes to shoulder joint stability. In patients with Bankart lesions, the anteroinferior glenohumeral ligament complex is damaged and reduces the likelihood of tensile stress. As a result, proprioceptive feedback does not work, which leads to instability. Surgical reconstruction is indicated to restore proprioception, but the details of recovery after arthroscopic surgery are unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether arthroscopic Bankart repair can improve the position sense of the shoulder.

Methods

We used the isokinetic dynamometer Biodex System 3 (Biodex, Shirley, NY, USA) to investigate preoperative and postoperative joint position sense in 140 shoulders (137 men, 3 women) undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic shoulder joint instability. The control subjects comprised 40 shoulders of healthy volunteers (all men). Active position sense was measured by setting the shoulder external rotation to 75° based on 90° abduction and neutral internal/external rotation position. Reproductive angle inaccuracy (RAI) was measured thrice, and the mean value was calculated. The RAI was measured preoperatively, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, and at the final observation (range, 16-96 months; mean, 31.5 months).

Results

Mean RAI was significantly higher (6.4°) preoperatively in the traumatic shoulder instability group than in the control group (5.0°). Mean postoperative RAI changed to 5.0, 4.9, and 4.7° at 6 months, 1 year, and final observation, respectively (mean, 31.5 months). RAI recovered to the same level as the control group at 6 months after the surgery and was maintained the same level until final observation.

Conclusion

Position sense was significantly worse in patients with traumatic shoulder joint instability than in healthy volunteers, and a significant improvement in position sense was observed after reconstruction of the anteroinferior glenohumeral ligament complex by arthroscopic Bankart repair. Therefore, arthroscopic Bankart repair is a favorable procedure that can improve the position sense of the shoulder in patients with traumatic shoulder instability.

Relationship Between Age at Initial Shoulder Instability and Overall Outcomes After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Mean 6-Year Follow-up

Background:

Age at surgery plays a crucial role in the frequency of recurrent shoulder instability. However, there are few studies that evaluate the relationship between age at initial shoulder instability and overall outcomes after stabilization surgery.

Purpose:

To compare clinical outcomes and structural changes after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients who experienced initial shoulder instability during adolescence versus those with later onset instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

This study included patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. Comparisons were made between patients who experienced initial shoulder instability during adolescence (age 13-19 years; group A) and those with later onset instability (age 20-35 years; group B). Clinical outcomes (recurrence rate, postoperative pain, functional scores, active range of motion, and return to sports) and structural changes demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were evaluated at minimum 2-year follow-up. In addition, functional outcomes within each group were compared between the patients with and without postoperative recurrence.

Results:

A total of 58 patients were included (24 patients in group A and 34 patients in group B). The mean follow-up was 72.1 months. Group A demonstrated a significantly higher recurrence rate than group B (41.7% vs 11.8%, respectively; P = .009; risk ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 1.43-20.09]) as well as significantly lower Rowe (76.9 ± 20.1 vs 88.7 ± 13.2, respectively; P = .01) and Constant-Murley scores (92.2 ± 7.6 vs 96.3 ± 4.2, respectively; P = .01). Postoperative MRI revealed no significant structural differences between the groups regarding the glenoid labrum, glenohumeral cartilage, or osseous reaction around the implanted anchors. In group A, patients with recurrence had less satisfaction regarding postoperative sports level than those without recurrence, whereas in group B, patients with recurrence had more postoperative pain and functional impairment compared with those without recurrence.

Conclusion:

Initial shoulder instability during adolescence was associated with a higher recurrence rate and lower functional scores after arthroscopic Bankart repair compared with later onset instability, although no significant structural differences were found between the groups on MRI at a mean 6-year follow-up.

A Multicenter Retrospective Study With a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up Comparing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair and the Latarjet Procedure

Background:

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the Latarjet procedure are surgical techniques commonly used to treat anterior shoulder instability. There is no consensus among shoulder surgeons regarding the indications for choosing one over the other.

Purpose:

To compare the results of the Latarjet procedure with those of ABR for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Data on all patients who were treated surgically for recurrent anterior shoulder instability between 2006 and 2011 were retrospectively collected at 4 medical centers. The minimum follow-up was 5 years. Data were retrieved from medical charts, and patients were interviewed to assess their level of satisfaction (range, 0-100), functional outcomes (using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score; the Subjective Shoulder Value; and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score), and quality of life (using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]). Information on return to sports activities and postoperative level of activity compared with that of the preinjury state, complications, reoperations, and recurrent instability were recorded and evaluated.

Results:

A total of 242 patients were included. The Latarjet procedure was performed in 27 shoulders, and ABR was performed in 215 shoulders. Patients in the ABR group had significantly higher rates of redislocation (18.5%; P = .05) and subluxation (21.4%; P = .43) but a lower rate of self-reported apprehension (43.0%; P = .05) compared with patients in the Latarjet group (3.7%, 14.8%, and 63.0%, respectively). There were 5 patients in the ABR group who underwent reoperation with the Latarjet procedure because of recurrent instability. The functional scores in the Latarjet group were better than those in the ABR group. The SF-12 physical score was significantly better in the Latarjet group than in the ABR group (98.1 vs 93.9, respectively; P = .01). Patient satisfaction and subjective scores were similar in both groups.

Conclusion:

These results support recently published data on the Latarjet procedure that showed its superiority over ABR in midterm stability (dislocations or subluxations). The contribution of self-reported apprehension to the broad definition of stability is not clear, and apprehension rates were not correlated with satisfaction scores or the recurrence of dislocation or subluxation.

Long-term Results of the Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability in Patients Older Than 40 Years: A Comparison With the Open Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

Long-term results of the arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients older than 40 years are unknown and may be favorable in terms of postoperative glenohumeral arthritis as opposed to the long-term results of the open Latarjet procedure in patients older than 40 years.

PURPOSE

To analyze our long-term results of the arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years of age and to compare these results with previously published long-term results of the Latarjet procedure in a cohort of similar age.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 35 consecutive patients (36 shoulders) with a mean age of 47 years (range, 40-69) at time of the arthroscopic Bankart repair were studied at a mean 13.2 years (range, 8-18) after surgery. Clinical and radiographic results were then compared with those of our previous study of 39 consecutive patients (40 shoulders) of a same age group who had been treated for the same pathology with an open Latarjet procedure.

RESULTS

Six shoulders (17%) sustained a recurrent shoulder dislocation after a mean 5.3 years; subluxation occurred in 3 shoulders (8%); and apprehension persisted in 3 shoulders (8%). Revision surgery was performed in 8 patients (22%): 2 Bankart and 6 open Latarjet. The relative preoperative Constant score and Subjective Shoulder Value were significantly improved (P < .001) at final follow-up. Arthropathy of stabilization was advanced in the shoulders of 16 patients (47%) and had progressed by at least 2 grades in 21 patients (62%). There were significantly higher rates of redislocation and subluxation when compared with the open Latarjet procedure (9 vs 3; P = .037), and the mean final Subjective Shoulder Value was significantly lower in the Bankart group (86% vs 91%; P = .011). There were no significant differences in final advanced arthropathy (16 vs 14; P = .334) and revision rates (8 vs 7; P = .409) when compared with the Latarjet procedure.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years was associated with reliable pain relief and patient satisfaction similar to that after the open Latarjet procedure. Restoration of stability was significantly less successful and development of arthropathy no better than the open Latarjet procedure in patients older than 40 years.

Large Drill Holes Are Still Present in the Long Term After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Absorbable Tacks: An 18-Year Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated the development of an osseous reaction at the drill sites of anchors after arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

PURPOSE

To investigate the drill-hole size at 18 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair using either fast polygluconate acid (PGA) or slow polylevolactic acid (PLLA) absorbable tacks and to compare the functional outcomes and development of osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

40 patients with unidirectional anterior shoulder instability, treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair, were randomized into the PGA group (n = 20) or the PLLA group (n = 20). Plain radiographs of both shoulders, as well as computed tomography (CT) images of the operated shoulder, were used to evaluate the drill-hole size, volume, and degenerative changes. Functional outcomes were assessed by use of the Rowe score, Constant score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) index.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients, 32 patients returned for the follow-up (15 PGA and 17 PLLA). No significant differences were found in the population characteristics between the study groups. The mean follow-up time was 18 years for both groups. No significant differences were seen in range of motion, strength in abduction, or Constant, Rowe, and WOSI scores between the groups. Recurrence rate was 33% in the PGA group and 6% in the PLLA group during the follow-up period (P = .07). The drill-hole appearance on plain radiographs (invisible/hardly visible/visible/cystic) was 11/2/2/0 and 6/5/5/1 for the PGA and PLLA groups, respectively (P = .036). The mean ± SD drill-hole volume as estimated on CT images was 89 ± 94 and 184 ± 158 mm³ in the PGA and PLLA groups, respectively (P = .051). Degenerative changes (normal/minor/moderate/severe) on plain radiographs were 7/4/4/0 and 3/8/5/1 for the PGA and PLLA groups, respectively (P = .21), and on CT images were 5/7/3/0 and 2/6/6/3 for the PGA and PLLA groups, respectively (P = .030).

CONCLUSION

This long-term follow-up study demonstrated that the PLLA group had significantly more visible drill holes than the PGA group on plain radiographs. However, this difference was not evident on CT imaging, with both groups having several visible cystic drill holes and a substantial drill-hole volume defect. No significant differences were found between the study groups in terms of clinical outcomes.

Does anchor insertion angle or placement of the suture anchor affect glenoid rim fracture occurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair?

BACKGROUND

The purposes were to compare the characteristics of 2 groups of patients who underwent revision Bankart repair with and without glenoid rim fractures and to examine risk factors for glenoid rim fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients who needed revision surgery after arthroscopic Bankart repair and identified 19 patients with and 20 patients without glenoid rim fractures. The insertion angle of the suture anchor, anchor position on the glenoid, and demographic data were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean anchor insertion angles in the glenoid fracture group (group F) at the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-o'clock positions were 64°, 58°, 55°, and 55°, respectively; those in the no-fracture group (group R) were 60°, 63°, 60°, and 55°, respectively (P = .630, P = .207, P = .166, and P = .976, respectively). At the 5-o'clock position, anchors were fixed to the glenoid face in 13 cases in group F and in 3 cases in group R (P = .040). Although age (P = .529) and sex (P = 1.0) did not differ between the groups, elite and professional athletes had a significantly higher incidence of glenoid rim fractures (P = .009).

CONCLUSION

The anchor insertion angle did not affect glenoid rim fracture occurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, the placement of the suture anchor at the 5-o'clock position on the glenoid face could increase the risk of glenoid rim fracture after trauma. Athletes were more likely to have glenoid rim fractures owing to major trauma after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Postoperative Recurrence of Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulders With Primary Instability Compared With Recurrent Instability: Influence of Bipolar Bone Defect Size

BACKGROUND

In shoulders with traumatic anterior instability, a bipolar bone defect has recently been recognized as an important indicator of the prognosis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of bipolar bone defects on postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair performed at primary instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 45 patients (45 shoulders) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair at primary instability before recurrence and were followed for at least 2 years. The control group consisted of 95 patients (95 shoulders) with recurrent instability who underwent Bankart repair and were followed for at least 2 years. Glenoid defects and Hill-Sachs lesions were classified into 5 size categories on 3-dimensional computed tomography and were allocated scores ranging from 0 for no defect to 4 for the largest defect. The shoulders were classified according to the total score for both lesions (0-8 points). The postoperative recurrence rate was investigated for each score of bipolar bone defects and was compared between patients with primary instability and patients with recurrent instability. The same analysis was performed for the age at operation (<20 years, 20-29 years, or ≥30 years) and for the presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion.

RESULTS

Bipolar bone defects were smaller in shoulders with primary instability (mean ± SD defect score, 1.4 ± 1.5 points) than in those with recurrent instability (3.6 ± 1.9 points) and were larger in older patients than in younger patients at the time of primary instability. The postoperative recurrence rate was low (6.7%) in shoulders with primary instability regardless of the size of the bipolar bone defect and the patient's age, whereas the postoperative recurrence rate was high (23.2%) in shoulders with recurrent instability, especially among patients younger than 20 years with bipolar bone defects of 2 points or greater. An off-track Hill-Sachs lesion was found in only 1 patient in the oldest age group (2.2%) at primary instability, but it was found in 19 patients (20%) at recurrent instability, including 14 patients younger than 30 years. Among patients with an off-track lesion, the postoperative recurrence rate was significantly higher in patients younger than 20 years with recurrent instability (recurrence rates: <20 years, 71.4%; 20-29 years, 14.3%; ≥30 years, 0%).

CONCLUSION

The recurrence rate was consistently low in patients with primary instability and was significantly influenced by bipolar bone defect size and patient age in patients with recurrent instability.

Results of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Recreational Athletes and Laborers: A Retrospective Study With 5 to 14 Years of Follow-up

Background:

Arthroscopic Bankart repair is the most common procedure for anterior shoulder instability management. However, the long-term efficacy of the procedure is questionable, and the results are different among different populations. Few studies have focused on specific populations, such as recreational athletes and laborers.

Hypothesis:

Good to excellent long-term results, with a low recurrence rate, can be achieved using arthroscopic Bankart repair in recreational athletes and laborers suffering from anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A specific group of laborers and recreational athletes were included in this study. A total of 52 patients (52 shoulders) with anterior-inferior traumatic shoulder instability underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and met our strict criteria for study inclusion. The recurrence rate was recorded. Patients were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 5 years using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Rowe score, the Constant score, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. A radiological evaluation for arthritis was also performed according to the Samilson-Prieto classification.

Results:

The mean follow-up was 105.4 months (range, 65-164 months). Our overall recurrence rate was 11.5% (6/52 patients). All patients were able to return to their previous job status with minimum limitations, and 76.7% of our study population reported returning to their preinjury sporting activities. Postoperatively, all scores were improved, with statistically significant increases from preoperative values (P < .001). At the last radiographic follow-up, 9 patients (18.8%) had mild arthritis, while 2 patients (4.2%) had moderate arthritis.

Conclusion:

Arthroscopic soft tissue Bankart repair may provide good to excellent long-term clinical results with an acceptable recurrence rate in medium-demand patients (recreational athletes and laborers).

Changes of Bipolar Bone Defect Size After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability: Evaluation Using a Scoring System and Influence on Postoperative Recurrence

Background

The combination of a glenoid defect and a Hill-Sachs lesion in shoulders with traumatic anterior instability has been termed bipolar bone loss, and the preoperative size of these lesions has been reported to influence postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Purpose

To investigate the influence of postoperative bipolar bone defect size on postoperative recurrence of instability.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A total of 64 male collision/contact athletes (69 shoulders) were evaluated for a minimum of 2 years after surgery, and the pre- and postoperative sizes of both lesions (glenoid defect and Hill-Sachs) were evaluated retrospectively with 3-dimensional computed tomography. The sports played by the athletes included rugby (n = 28 shoulders), American football (n = 24 shoulders), and other collision/contact sports (n = 17 shoulders). Glenoid defects and Hill-Sachs lesions were classified into 5 size categories and assigned scores from 0 (no defect) to 4 (very large defect). Patients were then classified according to the total score (sum of the scores for both lesions). The influence of pre- and postoperative bipolar bone defect sizes on recurrence of instability was investigated by using the total scores for bipolar bone defects. The influence of postoperative glenoid morphology (normal preoperative glenoid, preoperative glenoid erosion, bone union after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair [ABBR], or nonunion after ABBR) was also investigated, as well as changes in shoulders with a preoperative off-track Hill-Sachs lesion.

Results

Of 69 shoulders, 15 (21.7%) developed recurrent instability after surgery. The postoperative recurrence rate was 0% in shoulders with a total score ≤1, while the recurrence rate was consistently higher in shoulders with a total score ≥2 at both pre- and postoperative evaluation (mean, 28.8% and 32.6%, respectively). Postoperative recurrence was uncommon when there was a normal preoperative glenoid or bone union after ABBR, while it was frequent in shoulders with preoperative glenoid erosion or shoulders with nonunion after ABBR and a total score ≥2. An off-track lesion was recognized in 9 shoulders preoperatively. It was transformed to on-track lesions in 4 of the 5 shoulders showing bone union after ABBR, and there was no recurrence in the 5 shoulders with bone union. In contrast, postoperative recurrence of instability occurred in 3 of the 4 shoulders without bone union.

Conclusion

Postoperative recurrence was influenced by the pre- and postoperative size of bipolar bone defects. Recurrence was uncommon if bone union was achieved after ABBR, even if there had been an off-track lesion preoperatively.

Long-term outcomes following isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair: a 9- to 12-year follow-up

Background

The long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have been rarely reported. Because of its relative novelty, little is known about recurrent instability, postoperative arthritis, and patient satisfaction, particularly for well-established modern procedures. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Methods

Patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2003 to 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Recurrent instability, radiographic, and clinical scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], and Rowe scores) were evaluated. Patient factors (ie, age, gender, side, number of instability episodes, contact sports, and bone loss) were analyzed to determine the correlation with outcome measures.

Results

Among the 98 patients (102 shoulders), we were able to contact 50 patients (51 shoulders, mean age 27.0 years, mean follow-up 121.2 months). Significant bone loss in glenoid and humerus was arthroscopically observed in 16 (31.4%) and 28 (54.9%) shoulders, respectively. Sixteen shoulders (31.4%) experienced recurrent instability. Recent radiographs were obtained for 38 shoulders, 14 (36.8%) of which showed moderate to severe arthritis. Clinical outcomes at follow-up were 89.3, 10.8, and 76.0 for ASES, SST, and Rowe scores, respectively. Neither recurrent instability nor arthritis was correlated with any patient factors.

Conclusion

When isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair was used in all patients with shoulder instability regardless of bony defect, postoperative recurrent instability and arthritis rates were unacceptably high. Additional procedures should be chosen after careful consideration of multiple patient factors.

Surgical decision making based on the on-track/off-track concept for anterior shoulder instability: a case-control study

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with anterior shoulder instability who underwent surgical treatment according to the on-track/off-track concept.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent surgical treatment according to the glenoid track concept with a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. By use of preoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography images, surgical options were selected: arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for patients with on-track lesions and the Latarjet procedure or ABR with the remplissage procedure for patients with off-track lesions. The recurrence rate was assessed at 2-year follow-up after surgery.

Results

Among 92 patients enrolled in this study, 81 had on-track lesions and underwent ABR. Of the 11 patients with off-track lesions, 1 underwent ABR with the remplissage procedure and 10 underwent the Latarjet procedure. Recurrences occurred in 4 patients treated by ABR (5%), whereas no recurrences were observed in off-track cases treated by the remplissage or Latarjet procedure.

Conclusion

Clinical application of the on-track/off-track concept for determining surgical options in preoperative planning seems to be useful to prevent recurrent instability after surgery.

Bipolar Bone Loss in Male Athletes With Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability: An Evaluation Using a New Scoring System

Background:

The combination of a glenoid defect and a Hill-Sachs lesion in a shoulder with anterior instability has recently been termed “bipolar bone loss,” but the prevalence and influence of this condition on postoperative recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair are still unclear.

Purpose:

To investigate bipolar bone loss in male athletes using a new scoring system and to evaluate its efficacy by comparing it with the glenoid track concept.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The sizes of both lesions were evaluated retrospectively in 80 male athletes (85 shoulders) using computed tomography. The glenoid defects and the length, width, and depth of the Hill-Sachs lesions were classified into 5 size categories and were allocated scores from “0” for no defect to “4” for the largest defect. Patients were then classified into 5 classes according to the total score for both lesions: class 1, 0-1 point; class 2, 2 points; class 3, 3 points; class 4, 4 points; and class 5, ≥5 points. The prevalence of bipolar bone loss and postoperative recurrence rates for patients with at least 2 years of follow-up were compared among the classes. The recurrence rate for each class was also compared between shoulders with an off-track lesion and shoulders with an on-track lesion as well as among 3 sporting categories: rugby, American football, and other sports.

Results:

Based on the combination of glenoid defect size and Hill-Sachs lesion length, the postoperative recurrence rate was 0% for shoulders in class 1, 12.5% for class 2, 33.3% for class 3, 28.6% for class 4, and 31.3% for class 5, while the recurrence rates were 0%, 16.7%, 28.6%, 27.3%, and 31.6%, respectively, for the combination of glenoid defect size and Hill-Sachs lesion width and 0%, 8.3%, 26.7%, 28.6%, and 35.3%, respectively, for the combination of glenoid defect size and Hill-Sachs lesion depth. Postoperative recurrence was frequently recognized regardless of the presence of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. No recurrence was recognized in class 1 shoulders among rugby players, in classes 1 and 2 among American football players, and in classes 1 through 3 among other athletes based on the combination of glenoid defect size and Hill-Sachs lesion size.

Conclusion:

Our scoring system for bipolar bone loss was useful to evaluate the influence on postoperative recurrence in male athletes. The postoperative recurrence rate was influenced by the extent of bipolar bone loss and the sporting category regardless of the presence of off-track lesions.

Postoperative Recurrence of Instability Due to New Anterior Glenoid Rim Fractures After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) sometimes reveals a new fracture of the anterior glenoid rim in patients with postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair using suture anchors, but there have been few previous reports about such fractures.

HYPOTHESIS

The placement of a large number of suture anchors during arthroscopic Bankart repair might be associated with a new glenoid rim fracture.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Screw-in metal suture anchors were used until June 2011 and suture-based soft anchors from July 2011. A follow-up of at least 2 years was conducted for 128 shoulders treated using metal anchors (metal anchor group) and 129 shoulders treated using soft anchors (soft anchor group). The frequency and features of new glenoid rim fractures were investigated, and the influence of the number of suture anchors and other factors on fractures was also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 19 shoulders (14.8%) with postoperative recurrence in the metal anchor group and 23 shoulders (17.8%) in the soft anchor group. Among 37 shoulders evaluated by CT at recurrence, a new glenoid rim fracture was detected in 13 shoulders (35.1%; 5 shoulders in the metal anchor group and 8 shoulders in the soft anchor group). A fracture at the anchor insertion site was recognized in 4 shoulders from the metal anchor group and 6 shoulders from the soft anchor group, although linear fractures connecting several anchor holes were only seen in the soft anchor group. While new glenoid fractures occurred regardless of the number of suture anchors used, new fractures were significantly more frequent in teenagers at surgery and in junior high school or high school athletes. Such fractures did not only occur in contact athletes but were also found in overhead athletes.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative recurrence of instability associated with a new glenoid rim fracture along the suture anchor insertion site was frequent after arthroscopic Bankart repair. These fractures might be related to placing multiple soft suture anchors in a linear arrangement.

Recovery of Shoulder Rotational Muscle Strength After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background:

Shoulder rotational muscles act as dynamic stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint, and the recovery of muscle strength plays an important role in stabilizing the joint during postoperative rehabilitation. However, temporal changes in muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair have not been clarified.

Purpose:

To better understand the temporal recovery of shoulder rotational muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Isokinetic concentric shoulder rotational muscle strength was evaluated in 50 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent dislocations of the glenohumeral joint and treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Results:

The mean peak torque/weight and total work were reduced significantly at 1.5 months after surgery (P < .0001) and returned to preoperative levels by 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation. The contralateral peak torque ratios reached preoperative levels by 6 months after surgery. The ipsilateral peak torque ratios were reduced between 1.5 and 3 months after surgery and returned to preoperative levels at 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation.

Conclusion:

Isokinetic shoulder rotational muscle strength after arthroscopic Bankart repair recovered to preoperative levels by 6 months for external rotation and 4.5 months for internal rotation.

Risk Factors for the Postoperative Recurrence of Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Athletes

Background:

Several risk factors for the postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair have been reported, but there have been few detailed investigations of the specific risk factors in relation to the type of sport.

Purpose:

This study investigated the postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair without additional reinforcement procedures in competitive athletes, including athletes with a large glenoid defect. The purpose of this study was to investigate risk factors related to the postoperative recurrence of instability in athletes.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 115 athletes (123 shoulders) were classified into 5 groups according to type of sport: rugby (41 shoulders), American football (32 shoulders), other collision sports (18 shoulders), contact sports (15 shoulders), and overhead sports (17 shoulders). First, the recurrence rate in each sporting category was investigated, with 113 shoulders followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Then, factors related to postoperative recurrence were investigated in relation to the type of sport.

Results:

Postoperative recurrence of instability was noted in 23 of 113 shoulders (20.4%). The recurrence rate was 33.3% in rugby, 17.2% in American football, 11.1% in other collision sports, 14.3% in contact sports, and 12.5% in overhead sports. The most frequent cause of recurrence was tackling, and recurrence occurred with tackling in 12 of 16 athletes playing rugby or American football. Reoperation was completed in 11 shoulders. By univariate analysis, significant risk factors for postoperative recurrence of instability included playing rugby, age between 10 and 19 years at surgery, preoperative glenoid defect, small bone fragment of bony Bankart lesion, and capsular tear. However, by multivariate analysis, the most significant factor was not the type of sport but younger age at operation and a preoperative glenoid defect with small or no bone fragment. Compared with the other sports, there was a significantly greater recurrence rate among rugby players without the aforementioned significant risk factors (small glenoid defect, ≤10%; medium or large bone fragment, >5%; and no capsular tear).

Conclusion:

Younger age at operation and preoperative glenoid defect with small or no bone fragment significantly influenced recurrent instability among competitive athletes.

Critical Value of Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss That Leads to Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

Generally, a glenoid bone loss greater than 20% to 25% is considered critical for poor surgical outcomes after a soft tissue repair. However, recent studies have suggested that the critical value should be lower.

PURPOSE

To determine the critical value of anterior glenoid bone loss that led to surgical failure in patients with anterior shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The study included 169 patients with anterior glenoid erosion. The percentage of glenoid erosion was calculated as the ratio of the glenoid loss width and the glenoid width to the diameter of the outer-fitting circle based on the inferior portion of the glenoid contour. The critical value of the glenoid bone loss was analyzed by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the amount of glenoid bone loss: group A (less than the critical value) and group B (more than the critical value). Patients evaluated their shoulder function as a percentage of their preinjury level using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Rowe score. Surgical failure was defined as the need for revision surgery or the presence of subjective symptoms of instability.

RESULTS

The optimal critical value of glenoid bone loss was 17.3% (area under the curve = 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.91; P < .001; sensitivity 75%; specificity 86.6%). Group A and B contained 134 and 35 patients, respectively. Shoulder functional scores were significantly lower in group B than in group A ( P < .001). Five patients (3.7%) in group A and 15 (42.9%) in group B had surgical failure ( P < .001). The SANE score was significantly lower in group B (83.8 ± 12.1) than in group A (92.9 ± 4.7, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

An anterior glenoid bone loss of 17.3% or more with respect to the longest anteroposterior glenoid width should be considered as the critical amount of bone loss that may result in recurrent glenohumeral instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Influence of Glenoid Defect Size and Bone Fragment Size on the Clinical Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Male Collision/Contact Athletes

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of arthroscopic Bankart repair for collision/contact athletes has varied in previous reports.

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of glenoid rim morphologic characteristics on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic Bankart repair without additional reinforcement procedures in male collision/contact athletes, including athletes with a large glenoid defect.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Eighty-six athletes (93 shoulders) followed for a minimum of 2 years were retrospectively investigated. The sports were rugby (36 shoulders), American football (29 shoulders), and other collision/contact sports (28 shoulders). Preoperative glenoid defect size, bone fragment size, and bone union after bony Bankart repair were investigated regarding factors influencing postoperative recurrence. Postoperative changes in glenoid defect size and bone fragment size were investigated as well as their influence on the clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Postoperative recurrence of instability was noted in 22 shoulders (23.7%). The recurrence rate was 33.3% in rugby, 17.2% in American football, and 17.9% in other collision/contact sports. The recurrence rate was only 7.1% in 28 shoulders without a preoperative glenoid defect, but it increased to 43.8% in 16 shoulders that did not have a bone fragment even though there was a preoperative glenoid defect. Additionally, the recurrence rate was 7.7% in 26 shoulders with bone union after arthroscopic bony Bankart repair but rose to 45% in 20 shoulders without bone union. In the shoulders with bone union, the mean bone fragment size increased from 8.2% preoperatively to 15.2% postoperatively, while the mean glenoid defect size decreased from 18.0% to 2.8%, respectively. The recurrence rate was 8.3% in shoulders with a final glenoid defect 5% or less versus 38.1% in shoulders with a defect greater than 5%. While the recurrence rate was low among athletes other than rugby players with a final defect of 10% or less, it was low in only the rugby players with a defect of 0%.

CONCLUSION

In male collision/contact athletes, while the overall clinical outcome was unsatisfactory, a favorable outcome was achieved in athletes without a preoperative glenoid defect and athletes with bone union. The glenoid defect decreased in size postoperatively due to remodeling of the united bone fragment, and the recurrence rate was low when the final glenoid defect size was 5% or less.

Results of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior-Inferior Shoulder Instability at 13-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Anterior-inferior shoulder instability is a common injury in young patients, particularly those practicing overhead-throwing sports. Long-term results after open procedures are well studied and evaluated. However, the long-term results after arthroscopic repair and risk factors of recurrence require further assessment.

HYPOTHESIS

Arthroscopic Bankart repair results are comparable with those of open repair as described in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 180 shoulders with anterior-inferior shoulder instability were stabilized arthroscopically, met the inclusion criteria and the patients were able to be contacted at a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Of these patients, 143 agreed to participate in the study. Assessment was performed clinically in 104 patients using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons score, Rowe score, and the Dawson 12-item questionnaire. The Samilson-Prieto score was used to assess degenerative arthropathy in radiographs available for 100 shoulders. Additionally, 15 patients participated through a specific questionnaire and 24 patients through a telephone survey.

RESULTS

The overall redislocation rate was 18.18%. Redislocation rates for the different types of fixation devices were as follows: FASTak/Bio-FASTak, 15.1% (17/112); SureTac, 26.3% (5/19); and Panalok, 33.3% (4/12). Concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior repair had no effect on clinical outcome. Redislocation rate was significantly affected by the patient's age and duration of postoperative rehabilitation. Redislocation rate tended to be higher if there had been more than 1 dislocation preoperatively ( P = .098). Severe dislocation arthropathy was observed in 12% of patients, and degenerative changes were significantly correlated with the number of preoperative dislocations, patient age, and number of anchors. The patient satisfaction rate was 92.3%, and return to the preinjury sport level was possible in 49.5%.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcome at a mean follow-up of 13 years after arthroscopic repair of anterior-inferior shoulder instability is comparable with the reported results of open Bankart repair in the literature and allows management of concomitant lesions arthroscopically. Modifiable risk factors of postoperative redislocation and arthropathy must be considered. Stabilization after the first-time dislocation achieves better clinical and radiological outcomes than after multiple dislocations.

The results of Bankart repair without capsular plication in patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation, who had been treated with repair of the Bankart lesion without capsuler plication.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study included 22 shoulders of 22 patients (16 males and 6 females) with a mean age of 28 years, who underwent Bankart repair between 2011 and 2014. Patients with bilateral shoulder instability, multiple instability, >25% glenoid bone loss, and those with a history of shoulder surgery were not included in the study. The average follow-up time was 21.2 months. Evaluation was made of the preoperative number of dislocations, postoperative recurrence, functional status, and daily activity performance of the patients. Shoulder range of motion was measured. The results were evaluated using the Rowe shoulder score and the Oxford shoulder instability score.

RESULTS

Recurrence was observed in only one patient who had a shoulder dislocation after trauma, thus giving a recurrence rate of 4.5%. Shoulder range of motion was full in all except that one patient. The mean Rowe shoulder score was 95.5 (excellent) and Oxford shoulder stability score was 44.6 (excellent).

CONCLUSION

No recurrent shoulder dislocation was observed in patients who underwent Bankart repair surgery. Plication was not performed with the Bankart repair. Close to full range of motion was obtained in all patients. In conclusion, Bankart repair alone can be considered to be sufficient for the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Bristow-Latarjet for Shoulder Instability: A Matched-Pair Multicenter Study Focused on Return to Sport

BACKGROUND

The arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Bristow-Latarjet procedure are the 2 most commonly used techniques to treat recurrent shoulder instability.

PURPOSE

To compare in a case control-matched manner the 2 techniques, with particular emphasis on return to sport after surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A study was conducted in 2 hospitals matching 60 patients with posttraumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (30 patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart procedure and 30 treated with open Bristow-Latarjet procedure). Patients with severe glenoid bone loss and revision surgeries were excluded. In one hospital, patients were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair using anchors; in the other, patients underwent the Bristow-Latarjet procedure. Patients were matched according to age at surgery, type and level of sport practiced before shoulder instability (Degree of Shoulder Involvement in Sports [DOSIS] scale), and number of dislocations. The primary outcomes were return to sport (Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sports [SPORTS] score), rate of recurrent instability, Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), and range of motion (ROM).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 5.3 years (range, 2-9 years), patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair obtained better results in terms of return to sport (SPORTS score: 8 vs 6; P = .02) and ROM in the throwing position (86° vs 79°; P = .01), and they reported better subjective perception of the shoulder (SSV: 86% vs 75%; P = .02). No differences were detectable using the OSIS or WOSI. The rate of recurrent instability was not statistically different between the 2 groups (Bankart repair 10% vs Bristow-Latarjet 0%; P = .25), although the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference in this parameter. The multiple regression analysis showed that the independent variables associated with return to sport were preoperative DOSIS scale, type of surgery, and recurrent dislocations after surgery. Patients who played sports with high upper extremity involvement (eg, swimming, rugby, martial arts) at a competitive level (DOSIS scale 9 or 10) had a lower level of return to sport with both repair techniques.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic stabilization using anchors provided better return to sport and subjective perception of the shoulder compared with the open Bristow-Latarjet procedure in the population studied. Recurrence may be higher in the arthroscopic Bankart group; further study is needed on this point.

Comparison of Time to Recurrence of Instability After Open and Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Techniques

Background:

The results of open and arthroscopic instability repairs have been shown to be equivalent in recent literature.

Purpose:

To compare the time to recurrence (TTR) of instability and disease-specific outcome measures in patients undergoing open and arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability and a Bankart lesion on diagnostic arthroscopy underwent either open Bankart repair (OB) or arthroscopic Bankart and suture capsulorrhaphy (ABSC) using suture anchors. There was a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The primary outcome measures included Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score and time to recurrence of instability (dislocation or subluxation). Rowe score, Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and Short Form–12 (SF-12) score were also compared.

Results:

A total of 82 shoulders in 80 patients (ABSC, n = 58; OB, n = 24) were evaluated at a mean of 39 months postoperatively. There were 4 clinical failures in the OB group (4 dislocations) and 7 clinical failures in the ABSC group (2 dislocations and 5 subluxations; P = .72 vs OB). The mean time to recurrence of postoperative instability was significantly shorter in the ABSC group (12.6 ± 2.7 months) compared with the OB group (34.2 ± 12 months; P = .04). The WOSI score in the OB group (265 ± 48.1) was better but not statistically significantly compared with the ABSC group (449.8 ± 63.8; P = .06).

Conclusion:

The time to recurrence of instability after open Bankart repair is significantly longer compared with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Clinical Relevance:

Delayed time to recurrence after open Bankart repair suggests that the open technique may be more suited to withstand the high stress and demands of a heavy-duty profession (contact athletes and heavy manual labor).

Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Dislocation Arthropathy: Radiological Long-term Outcome of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in 100 Shoulders at an Average 13-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is a well-documented, long-term complication of open stabilization procedures. However, there is a lack of knowledge about long-term radiographic outcome after arthroscopic Bankart procedures.

HYPOTHESIS

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis will develop less frequently in arthroscopic Bankart repair compared with open repairs reported in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria for this study were (1) all-arthroscopic Bankart repair for a (2) symptomatic anteroinferior shoulder instability and (3) a minimum follow-up of 10 years. True anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to evaluate the prevalence and grade of osteoarthritis according to the Samilson classification. Patients were assessed by the Constant score and examined for passive external rotation deficits.

RESULTS

Of 165 shoulders that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 100 were available for evaluation. The median Constant score at an average±SD 156.2±18.5 months after Bankart repair was 94 (range, 46-100). Twenty-one shoulders (21%) sustained a recurrent dislocation. Overall, 31% of shoulders showed no evidence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis; 41% showed mild, 16% moderate, and 12% severe degenerative changes. Osteoarthritis did not correlate with Constant score results (P=.427). The grade of osteoarthritis was significantly associated with the number of preoperative dislocations (P=.016), age at initial dislocation (P=.005) and at surgery (P=.002), and the number of anchors used (P=.001), whereas time from initial dislocation to surgery (P=.854) and external rotation deficit at 0° and 90° of abduction (P=.104 and .348, respectively) showed no significant correlation. Recurrent dislocation did not affect the presence or grade of osteoarthritis (P=.796 and .665, respectively).

CONCLUSION

At an average 13 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair, osteoarthritic changes are a common finding and, overall, are comparable with reports in the literature regarding open procedures as well as nonoperative treatment. The extent of trauma sustained during preoperative dislocations and the age of the patient seem to be more relevant for long-term dislocation arthropathy than the kind of treatment. Accordingly, the study hypothesis must be rejected. Avoiding preoperative dislocations is more important for the prevention of osteoarthritis than short-term treatment. The number of anchors used was found to be a predictor for long-term development of osteoarthritis.

Upper limb kinematics after arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization

BACKGROUND

Shoulder joint stability mediated by proprioception is often quantified by arm repositioning tests (i.e., static end-position accuracy), overlooking ongoing movement quality. This study assessed movement quality by adopting smoothness-related kinematic descriptors. We compared performance of healthy controls with that of patients in arthroscopic shoulder stabilization and open shoulder stabilization groups. We hypothesized that arm kinematics after arthroscopic intervention would more closely resemble healthy movements compared with patients after open shoulder stabilization surgery.

METHODS

Healthy controls (N = 14) were compared with patients after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization (N = 10) and open shoulder stabilization (N = 12). Right-hand dominant subjects (the affected side in patients) performed 135 unconstrained 3-dimensional pointing movements toward visual targets (seen through pinhole goggles; i.e., no arm vision). Arm kinematic data were recorded and offline analyzed to obtain hand tangential velocity profiles further used to compute the acceleration-to-movement time ratio, peak-to-mean velocity ratio, and number of velocity peaks ("symmetry," "proportion," and "fragmentation" features, respectively). Parametric and nonparametric statistics were used for comparisons (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

Control and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization groups presented similar acceleration-to-movement time ratio and peak-to-mean velocity ratio. Both groups differed from the open shoulder stabilization group (P = .001). Distributions of velocity peaks for control and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization groups were similar, whereas open shoulder stabilization and control subjects differed significantly (P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Movement quality mediated by proprioception in arthroscopic shoulder stabilization patients matches that of healthy controls, whereas performance in open shoulder stabilization patients seems inferior compared with that in healthy controls, as assessed by smoothness-related measures (less symmetrical, more fragmented movements).