Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Research Articles

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.

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.

Association of the Stability Ratio With Postoperative Clinical Function and Recurrence of Instability in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The stability ratio (SR) is used to assess the stability of the glenoid in anterior shoulder instability (ASI). However, the association between the SR and postoperative clinical function and instability recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair is unknown. Hypothesis: Patients with a higher SR would have better postoperative clinical scores and a lower incidence of recurrent instability than patients with a lower SR after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 62 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for ASI between 2013 and 2019 were enrolled. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up data. The preoperative SR was calculated via biomechanical testing based on patient-specific 3-dimensional glenoid models, and patients were evenly divided into 2 groups: high SR (≥16.13%) and low SR (&lt;16.13%). Baseline information (patient characteristics, clinical history, bone defect area [BDA], and SR), clinical scores at the final follow-up (Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons), and instability recurrence were compared between the 2 groups. Results: No significant differences were found in the baseline information between the high- and low-SR groups, except for the BDA (8.5% [high-SR group] vs 11.9% [low-SR group]; P = .01). No patients in the high-SR group had recurrent instability, while 6 patients (19.4%) had recurrent instability in the low-SR group ( P = .02). Patients in the high-SR group had superior clinical outcomes compared with those in the low-SR group in terms of postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Index scores (median, 205 vs 410, respectively; P = .006) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (median, 98.3 vs 95, respectively; P = .02). Conclusion: In the present study, the SR was significantly associated with postoperative clinical function and recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ASI.

Glenoid augmentation for subcritical bone loss: a narrative review.

Anterior shoulder instability can be debilitating for young, active individuals, and increasing magnitudes of glenoid bone loss (GBL) predisposes patients to recurrent instability and increases the likelihood of failure of soft-tissue only repairs. It is widely accepted that GBL >25% should be treated with a glenoid bone grafting procedure. However, consensus is lacking on the optimal management in the setting of subcritical GBL, typically classified as >13.5%. This article reviews the pathoanatomy relevant to anterior shoulder instability and subcritical GBL, while highlighting existing evidence regarding open augmentation procedures in comparison to other treatment options for this subpopulation. A narrative review of the current literature was conducted focusing on subcritical GBL in anterior glenoid stabilization procedures, including review of forward citation and reference lists of selected articles. Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for obtaining precise measurements of subcritical GBL, defined as <13.5%, using the best-fit circle method. There is debate surrounding the optimal surgical management of subcritical GBL. Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) remains the predominate surgery performed for primary anterior shoulder instability, while glenoid augmentation and open Bankart repair continue to be used sparingly in the United States. Historically, the Latarjet procedure was considered for substantial glenoid defects, but the illumination of subcritical GBL has expanded its indications. Arthroscopic, soft tissue-only repairs with the addition of remplissage, has been shown to have similar 2-year outcomes to the Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL, which has been limited in the study of subcritical GBL. Additionally, utilization of distal tibial allograft and local autograft is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, again, with limited prospective studies in the subcritical GBL population. There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment approach to recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of subcritical GBL. Conversely, there is a growing agreement that isolated ABR is likely inadequate and subcritical GBL should prompt consideration of a more robust operation. To this end, interest in glenoid bone augmentation continues to grow as a reliable technique for recreating the native architecture and restoring glenohumeral stability are developed.

Arthroscopic Bankart versus Open Latarjet; Short-to-Mid-Term Outcomes of Recurrence and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation

Objectives This retrospective comparative study compared the short to mid-term outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet procedures in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Methods Patients who underwent either arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedures between 2008 and 2020, with at least one year of follow-up, were included. Arthroscopic Bankart repairs were performed on shoulders with minimal glenoid bone loss (&lt;15%), and the Latarjet procedure was performed if the preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan showed a 15% bone loss on the glenoid side or 30-40% humeral head bone loss. Their surgery results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). Results 133 patients were analyzed in Latarjet (n = 67) and Bankart groups (n = 66). Before surgery, the two groups of patients were similar regarding surgery side, hand dominance, education level, occupation difficulty level, and smoking (P&gt;0.05). However, Latarjet’s patients were younger (32 vs. 35, P=0.04), had a higher proportion of males (96% vs. 82%, P=0.01), and had a significantly shorter follow-up period (3.2 vs. 6.4 years, P&lt;0.001) than the Bankart group. There was no significant difference between the Latarjet and Bankart groups regarding the follow-up’s OSS score (37 vs. 36; P=0.94) and SPADI score (22 vs. 24, P=0.80). Dislocation was observed in only one patient (1.5%) in the Latarjet group (P=1.0). Subluxation was observed in 5 patients (7.5%) of the Latarjet group and three patients (4.5%) of the Bankart group (P=0.4). The overall instability rate was similar (P&gt;0.05). Conclusion Our findings suggest that both arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet are reliable techniques in short to mid-term follow-up based on the glenoid bone loss cut-off of 15%. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level III

Developing a Rehabilitation Guideline (REGUIDE) for Patients Undergoing an Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation, Focusing on Managing Apprehension: An International Delphi-Based Consensus Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a consensus-based rehabilitation guideline specifically designed to reduce apprehension following arthroscopic Bankart repair after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. DESIGN: Delphi-based consensus. METHOD: A comprehensive list of interventions for potential inclusion in a postoperative rehabilitation guideline was developed. American and European physiotherapists and orthopedic surgeons were invited to participate in a Delphi panel, engaging in 3 survey rounds. The health professionals were surveyed about their level of agreement on both initially listed and newly suggested interventions. Consensus was established when a "critical-to-include" rating was given in ≥70% of all responses. Ten former patients were consulted to identify the intervention during standard care rehabilitation that had the most impact on reducing postoperative apprehension following ABR. Any interventions not initially listed in the first round were added to the second survey round of the Delphi process. RESULTS: Forty-four health professionals reached consensus on a set of 27 interventions for managing apprehension after arthroscopic Bankart repair. New interventions included gradual exposure to shoulder positions eliciting apprehension, training in anterior stability-provoking positions, and education addressing the impact of psychosocial factors. Former patients identified specific interventions that were effective in reducing postoperative apprehension following ABR. These interventions encompassed medicine ball throws, active-assisted wall slides, and kinetic chain exercises in anterior stability-provoking positions. CONCLUSION: Our Delphi process informed expert recommendations for various interventions aimed at addressing apprehension associated with ABR. The recommendations were the foundation for developing a rehabilitation guideline (REGUIDE). The REGUIDE integrates principles from cognitive-behavioral therapy to improve rehabilitation and mitigate apprehension. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(5):1-13. Epub 20 March 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12106.

Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Indian Population: A Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction: The past two decades have witnessed significant development in arthroscopic management for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Currently, arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is popular in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. There is a dramatic rise in the number of orthopedic surgeons in India specializing in shoulder surgery and is believed to be secondary to the advancement in arthroscopic techniques and implants. However, there is a paucity of Indian literature on functional outcomes of ABR. The purpose of the current review is to better understand the functional outcomes of ABR in the Indian population. Methods: A search of major databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) was performed in April 2020. Reference lists of selected research articles were further screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for analysis were used to generate the final list of studies. Results: A total of ten research studies were included in the final analysis representing a pooled patient population set of 391 patients. The mean age for patients across the studies was 27 years (range: 24–29) of age and the average number of dislocations before surgery was five (range: 0–14). The average follow-up period post-surgery was 20 months (range: 6–27 months). Among the functional scores, the average UCLA score improved from 22 (range: 18–30) at preoperatively to 32 (range: 31–35), and the mean Rowe score improved from an average of 27 (range: 24–63) preoperatively to 91 (range: 90–94) during the follow up duration. The average postoperative re-dislocation rate was 7% (range: 0%–10%). Conclusion: In the Indian population, ABR provides consistently good functional outcomes with a low postoperative re-dislocation rate, which is at par with the global data. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to validate these results.

Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair using All-Suture Anchor and Metal Anchor.

Both knotted all suture anchors and metal anchors are used for arthroscopic Bankart repair. We retrospectively evaluated and compared clinical and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the knotted all-suture anchors and knotted metal anchors. In a retrospective cohort analysis, patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair without any concomitant additional lesion repair using either all-suture anchors or metal anchors, between January 2015 and May 2018 were identified. Their pre- and post-operative functional and clinical outcomes were compared using Rowe and WOSI scores. The recurrence rate in the two groups was also compared. A total of 41 patients in all suture anchors group and 47 in the metal anchors group were identified as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic profile of both groups was comparable. There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two suture anchor groups as per Rowe (pre-operative 40.13+6.51 vs 38.09+6.24 and post-operative 2 years 93.28+7.09 vs 92.55+9.2) and WOSI (pre-operative 943.05+216.64 vs 977.55+165.46 and post-operative 2 years 278.21+227.56 vs 270.94+186.25) scores. There was a significant improvement in both the groups between preoperative and post-operative ROWE and WOSI scores at 6 months and 2 years follow-up as compared to pre-operative scores (p<0.001). Re-dislocation rates were also comparable (4.8% vs 6.3%). All-suture anchors showed comparable clinical and functional results as the metal anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair at two-year follow-up.

Biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair: a clinical prospective cohort study protocol

IntroductionTraumatic shoulder dislocation is a common shoulder injury, especially among the young and active population. More than 95% of dislocations are anterior, in which the humeral head is forced beyond...

All-Suture Anchor vs. Knotless Suture Anchor for the Treatment of Anterior Shoulder Instability-A Prospective Cohort Study.

All-suture or soft-anchors (SA) represent a new generation of suture anchor technology with a completely suture-based system. This study's objective was to assess Juggerknot® SA, for arthroscopic Bankart repair in recurrent shoulder instability (RSI), and to compare it to a commonly performed knotless anchor (KA) technique (Pushlock®). In a prospective cohort study, 30 consecutive patients scheduled for reconstruction of the capsulolabral complex without substantial glenoid bone loss were included and operated on using the SA technique. A historical control group was operated on using the KA technique for the same indication. Clinical examinations were performed preoperatively and 12 and 24 months postoperatively. RSI and WOSI at 24 months were the co-primary endpoints, evaluated with logistic and linear regression. A total of 5 out of 30 (16.7%) patients suffered from RSI in the SA group, one out of 31 (3.2%) in the KA group (adjusted odds ratio = 10.12, 95% CI: 0.89-115.35), and 13.3% in the SA group and 3.2% in the KAgroup had a revision. The median WOSI in the SA group was lower than in the KA group (81% vs. 95%) (adjusted regression coefficient = 10.12, 95% CI: 0.89-115.35). Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for RSI using either the SA or KA technique led to satisfying clinical outcomes. However, there is a tendency for higher RSI and lower WOSI following the SA technique.

The glenoid track concept is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: a computed tomography scan study

BackgroundThe glenoid track concept identifies patients with “off-track” (engaging) Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) as poor candidates for arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) due to high risk of shoulder instability recurrence. PurposeTo retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index, using preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans, in a cohort of patients with failed ABR. We hypothesized that all patients with a failed ABR would have engaging (“off-track”) Hill-Sachs lesions on preoperative CT-scan. Type of StudyComputed tomography scan study MethodsPreoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of 45 patients, seen in our facility for failed ABR, were used to retrospectively calculate the glenoid track index. The risk of recurrence was also calculated for each patient using Instability Severity Index Score (ISI-Score) and Glenoid Track Instability Management Score (GTIMS). There were 37 failed isolated ABRs and 8 associated Hill-Sachs remplissage. The mean t age at surgery was 24 years (range, 15-52) and instability recurred at a mean of 29 months postoperative (range, 3-167). ResultsPreoperative CT-scan imaging identified “off-track” bony lesions in 85% of patients (38/45), and “on-track” lesions in 15% (7/45). No significant differences were noted between the two groups (off-track versus on-track) regarding patient age, hyperlaxity, sports participation, size of HS lesion, or ISI score. The mean glenoid bone loss was 15.7% (range, 4-36%) with mean Hill-Sachs width was greater than 20mm in 66% of CT scans. The preoperative ISI-Score was predictive of failures (> 3 points in all patients) with no difference between on-track and off-track patients (6.3 ±1.7 versus 6.6 ±1.7, p=0.453). By contrast, the GTIMS did not predict failures as there was a significant difference between GTIMS for on-track and off-track patients (2.1 ±1.3 versus 6.6 ±1.7). ConclusionsThe glenoid track concept alone is insufficient to predict Bankart failures: in the present series of failed ABR, 15% of shoulders had “on-track” (non-engaging) lesions on preoperative CT-scan. In patients, with “on track” bony lesions, the ISI-Score is a useful predictive tool to detect patients at risk of failure, while the GTIMS is not.

Longer peripheral-track lesions are associated with instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

BackgroundThe Glenoid track concept has enabled the categorization of Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) into on-track lesions and off-track lesions. Furthermore, among the on-track lesions, further categorization has been established based on the distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track, into peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions. Recent studies on peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions within the glenoid track have shown inconsistencies in failure rates, which deserves further investigation. MethodsA retrospective cohort comparison of patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2015 and 2020 was performed. 102 patients with peripheral-track HSLs were included. The patients were divided into two groups based on the results of the postoperative apprehension test: the apprehension positive group (n=30), and the apprehension negative group (n=72). Using preoperative computed tomography and an image reconstruction program, three-dimensional images were segmented to calculate the length, width, depth, and distance of the HSLs. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of recurrence, for which odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. ResultsA multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the length of the peripheral-track HSLs was a significant independent predictor of failure in this study. (OR 1.380; 95% CI 1.170–1.627; P<0.001). The receiver operating characteristics curve demonstrated a predictive power (area under the curve = 0.841) and a threshold value of 14.2 mm. ConclusionLength was the only risk factor for the recurrent instability of peripheral-track HSLs after ABR. In the context of surgical decision-making, utilizing the glenoid track concept, medical practitioners may need to evaluate instability by considering the length as a continuous factor, while differentiating between peripheral-track and central-track classifications.

To Remplissage or Not to Remplissage Part 1: Prognostic Factors Influencing Recurrent Shoulder Instability in High-Risk Individuals with On-Track Shoulders Undergoing Primary Arthroscopic Anterior Stabilization

Objectives: Recent studies have shown that a subset of on-track Hill-Sachs lesions (HSL), defined as near-track lesions, may have a high risk of failure after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate rates of recurrent shoulder instability among patients with on-track HSL who underwent primary ABR with and without remplissage in the setting of numerous risk factors highlighted in recent literature. We hypothesized that primary ABR with remplissage (ABR+R) would lower postoperative rates of recurrent shoulder instability, particularly for “high-risk” patients defined as “near-track” lesions, hyperlaxity, younger age, contact athletes, and &gt;1 preoperative instability episodes. Methods: Prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed for consecutive patients aged 14-40 years who underwent either ABR or ABR+R between 2013 and 2021 for anterior glenohumeral instability. Glenoid bone loss, Hills-Sachs Interval (HSI), glenoid track (GT), and distance-to-dislocation (DTD) values (DTD = GT-HSI) were determined via preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Additionally, “near-track” lesions are a subset of on-track lesions with a DTD from 0 – 10mm. Capsuloligamentous laxity (i.e., hyperlaxity) was defined as external rotation greater than 85 degrees and/or grade 2+ posterior and inferior load-and-shift on examination under anesthesia. Recurrent shoulder instability was defined as recurrent dislocation and/or subjective subluxation postoperatively. Patients were excluded if the indexed surgery was a revision procedure, &lt; 2-year follow-up, or glenoid bone loss (GBL) &gt;20%. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to determine predictors of recurrent shoulder instability and reoperation. Results: One-hundred-and-fifty-five patients were included for analysis (ABR: 116 | ABR+R: 39) with an average age of 21.6 ± 6.2 years and an average follow-up of 5.1 ± 2.0 years (range: 2.0 – 8.7 yrs). Overall, 30 patients (19%) experienced recurrent shoulder instability postoperatively (4.3 per 100 person-years), and 20 (13%) underwent secondary surgery (2.9 per 100 person-years) for revision stabilization. Among the 116 patients who underwent primary ABR only, 27 (23.3%) experienced recurrent shoulder instability, compared with only three of the 39 ABR+R patients (7.7%). Risk factors assessed included: age, gender, sport, number of preoperative instability episodes, shoulder laxity, GBL, and DTD. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age (p=0.003), increased shoulder laxity (p=0.010), 2+ episodes of preoperative instability episodes (p=0.009), and a lower DTD (p=0.046) were independent risk factors for recurrent shoulder instability postoperatively. However, contact athlete status was not identified as a significant predictor of recurrent shoulder instability. According to multivariate results, patients who underwent primary ABR only were roughly 9-times more likely to experience recurrent shoulder instability (HR: 8.7, p=0.002) and 7-times more likely to undergo reoperation (HR:6.8, p=0.019) than those who underwent primary ABR+R. When considering patients with three or more risk factors (i.e., “near-track” lesions, hyperlaxity, age &lt; 25, or 2+ preoperative instability episodes), 9 of 12 ABR patients (75%) and 2 of 16 ABR+R (13%) experienced recurrent shoulder instability (p = 0.001), Table 1. Survival rates for ABR only versus ABR+R for patients with three or more risk factors are plotted in Figure 1 using Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Conclusions: Arthroscopic primary Bankart repair with remplissage may be an effective approach for decreasing the likelihood of recurrent shoulder instability and the need for secondary surgery among patients with on-track HSL. This surgical approach is especially beneficial for patients with lower DTD, increased shoulder laxity, younger age, or 2+ preoperative instability episodes in a dose-dependent manner. Those with higher risks of recurrence may benefit significantly more with the addition of a remplissage than those with fewer risk factors.

Open Bankart Repair with Subscapularis Split.

Anterior shoulder dislocations are a common injury, especially in the young, active, male population1. Soft-tissue treatment options for shoulder instability include arthroscopic or open Bankart repair, with open Bankart repair historically having lower rates of recurrence and reoperation, faster return to activity2-4, and a similar quality of life compared with arthroscopic repair5. More recent literature has suggested similar recurrence rates between arthroscopic and open procedures6. However, open Bankart repair may be indicated in cases of recurrent instability, especially if the patient participates in high-risk sports, because open repair can provide more capsular shift through the use of extra-capsular knots7. Performing a subscapularis split decreases the likelihood of subscapularis tendon avulsion following subscapularis tendon tenotomy and subsequent repair, as has been described in the literature8. Indications for open Bankart repair include failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair, multiple dislocations, with subcritical bone loss. This surgical technique is performed via the deltopectoral approach. The subscapularis tendon is exposed and "spared" by splitting the fibers with use of a longitudinal incision between the upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 of the subscapularis. We begin the split medially near the myotendinous junction. Because the subscapularis becomes increasingly difficult to separate from the capsule as it tracks laterally, a RAY-TEC sponge is utilized to bluntly dissect. A T-shaped laterally based capsulotomy is made to expose the glenohumeral joint. The vertical aspect is made first, followed by the horizontal aspect from lateral to medial, extending to the labrum. A Fukuda retractor is placed through the split to hold the humeral head laterally. The labrum is elevated, and the glenoid is prepared with rasp. Then labrum is repaired with knotted suture anchors until it is secure. One anchor is utilized for each "hour" of the clock face, with a minimum of 3 anchors. The anchors are placed on the articular margin of the glenoid. Sutures are passed from the anchor through the capsule and tied outside the capsule. The capsulotomy is then repaired with use of a suture. The suture is utilized to pull the inferior portion superiorly. The inferior portion is taken superiorly, and the superior leaflet is imbricated over the top. Finally, an examination is performed to ensure that the humeral head can be translated to but not over the anterior and posterior glenoid rims. No repair of the subscapularis tendon insertion is required. The incision is closed with deep dermal and subcuticular suture. Nonoperative treatment options include rotator cuff and periscapular strengthening or immobilization. Operative treatment options include open Bankart repair with subscapularis tenotomy and repair, arthroscopic Bankart repair, or bone block augmentation procedures. This procedure is different from the alternative treatments in that it is an open procedure, which allows for a more robust repair because the capsule can be shifted and doubled over, leading to the described decreased recurrence and reoperation rates. Open Bankart repair is better suited for large lesions that would be difficult to repair via arthroscopy. This procedure differs from other open Bankart techniques because the subscapularis is split rather than tenotomized, which removes the need to repair the tendon and decreases the rate of avulsion of the subscapularis tendon repair. Finally, this procedure is less invasive than the Latarjet procedure because it does not require osseous osteotomies and fixation. This procedure provides adequate capsular shift and visualization of the Bankart lesion without the increased risk of postoperative subscapularis tendon injury. If the subscapularis split alone does not provide adequate visualization, portions of the subscapularis tendon can be released from the lesser tuberosity.The location and origin of the upper and lower subscapular nerves can have variable courses, which could theoretically put them at risk for iatrogenic injury; however, studies have shown this subscapularis split technique to be safe from and prevent denervation of the muscle. GBL = glenoid bone lossEUA = examination under anesthesiaMRI = magnetic resonance imagingHSL = Hill-Sachs lesionAHCA = anterior humeral circumflex artery.

To Remplissage or not to Remplissage Part 2: Recurrent Instability After Primary Stabilization Surgery (RIPSS) Risk Tool Assesses Preoperative Failure Rates in On-track Shoulders Undergoing Primary Arthroscopic Anterior Stabilization with or without Remplissage Augmentation

Objectives: Given the high rates of recurrent instability following the initial arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR), it is crucial to provide recommendations for appropriate surgical interventions for patients at a higher risk of experiencing recurring instability. In Part 1 of the study, it was discovered that on-track Hill-Sachs lesions (HSL) with specific prognostic factors (i.e., younger age, increased shoulder laxity, lower DTD, and 2+ preoperative instability events) were associated with a greater risk of failure. Therefore, the objective of Part 2 was to develop a risk assessment tool that takes into account significant prognostic factors for recurrent shoulder instability following primary ABR and evaluate the role of remplissage augmentation given a patient’s risk profile. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of consecutive patients aged 14-40 who underwent either ABR (arthroscopic Bankart repair) or ABR+R (ABR with remplissage) procedures between 2013 and 2021 for anterior glenohumeral instability. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was used to determine the values of glenoid bone loss, Hills-Sachs Interval (HSI), glenoid track (GT), and distance-to-dislocation (DTD). On-track lesions have a distance-to-dislocation (DTD) value greater than zero. In addition, within the category of on-track lesions, there is a subset known as “near-track” lesions, with a DTD ranging from 0 to 10 mm. Capsuloligamentous laxity scores were categorized according to hyperlaxity status, defined as external rotation greater than 85 degrees and/or grade 2+ posterior and inferior load-and-shift on examination under anesthesia. Recurrent shoulder instability was defined as recurrent dislocation and/or subjective subluxation postoperatively. Patients were excluded if the indexed surgery was a revision procedure, &lt; 2-year follow-up, or glenoid bone loss (GBL) &gt;20%. A final multivariate survival analysis was constructed using categorical prognostic factors (i.e., patient age, “near-track” status, hyperlaxity, and 2+ preoperative instability episodes) identified in Part 1, while adjusting for GBL. Although contact athlete status was not identified as a significant predictor of recurrent shoulder instability in Part 1, the final model stratified by contact athlete status given its established importance in prior literature. Multivariate hazard ratio estimates were utilized to create a risk assessment tool and correlated with patient-specific risk estimates via post-estimation analysis. Results: One-hundred-and-fifty-five patients were included for analysis (ABR: 116 | ABR+R: 39) with an average age of 21.6 ± 6.2 years and an average follow-up of 5.1 ± 2.0 years (range: 2.0 – 8.7 yrs). Patients with near-track lesions had a three-fold higher risk of recurrent instability (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 2.5, p = 0.03) compared to on-track HSL with DTD &gt; 10mm. Individuals with evidence of hyperlaxity exhibited a five-fold increased risk (HR: 5.4, p=0.03) relative to patients without hyperlaxity. Younger patient groups had twice the risk of recurrent shoulder instability (HR: 2.2, p=0.003) compared to older adjacent groups. Patients with two or more preoperative recurrent instability episodes faced a four-times greater risk (HR: 4.2, p=0.004) for recurrent shoulder instability compared to patients who experienced a single instability event preoperatively. Lastly, patients who underwent primary ABR only had almost 10-times greater risk of recurrent shoulder instability (HR: 9.5, p=0.002) than those who underwent primary ABR+R. The Recurrent Instability after Primary Shoulder Stabilization (RIPSS) risk assessment score considers patient age, near-track status, hyperlaxity, preoperative instability episodes, and surgical technique (ABR vs. ABR+R) as important prognostic indicators, Table 2. The RIPSS score was created with risk stratifying subgroups: Low-risk (0 – 2), Moderate-risk (3 – 6), High-risk (7 – 9), and Extreme-risk (10+). Figure 1 illustrates a strong correlation between patient RIPSS scores with patient-specific hazard ratio estimates derived from the multivariate Cox regression modeling computed in “To Remplissage or not to Remplissage Part 1”. According to RIPSS score subgroups, recurrent shoulder instability rates range from 4.3% among low-risk groups to 54.6% among extreme-risk groups, Figure 1. Conclusions: Patients with a low-risk RIPSS score without ABR+R may not benefit from remplissage augmentation. Their risk for recurrent instability would remain low despite the addition of remplissage. However, patients with a high- or extreme-risk RIPSS score prior to considering ARB+R would likely benefit from remplissage supplementation. The RIPSS score may be an effective risk assessment tool that may help identify patients who may benefit from a primary Bankart repair with remplissage augmentation. The risk assessment tool developed may optimize surgical treatment and allow physicians to determine patient risk scores with and without remplissage augmentation.

Validating the Glenoid Track Concept Using Dynamic Arthroscopic Assessment.

Failure after isolated Bankart repair has led surgeons to consider when to address the Hill-Sachs lesion, which is thought to be a contributor to recurrent instability. One approach utilizes the glenoid track concept to determine whether a Hill-Sachs lesion is classified as "off-track," suggesting that the addition of a remplissage procedure may aid stability. However, the accuracy and reliability of using this approach require validation using an appropriate reference. To determine the accuracy and reliability of using the glenoid track concept against dynamic arthroscopic assessment of Hill-Sachs lesion engagement. Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. A total of 49 patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery for recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability were enrolled in this diagnostic validation study. Shoulders were classified as on-track or off-track using 3-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) and static arthroscopic measurements. These classifications were compared with dynamic arthroscopic assessment (engagement of the Hill-Sachs lesion on the anterior glenoid rim in the 'athletic position') to determine their accuracy and reliability. The 3DCT-based measurements to determine glenoid track status had a higher positive predictive value (66% vs 42%), higher specificity (47% vs 42%), and higher accuracy (65% vs 59%) compared with static arthroscopic measurements. Static arthroscopic measurements to determine glenoid track status had a higher negative predictive value (96% vs 64%) and higher sensitivity (96% vs 81%) compared with 3DCT-based measurements. Interrater reliability (Krippendorff α) was 'fair' for determining the glenoid track status using 3DCT (0.368; 95% CI, 0.217-0.519) and 'moderate' for static arthroscopic measurements (0.523; 95% CI, 0.364-0.666). Intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 3,k) was 'moderate' for 3DCT measurements (0.660; 95% CI, 0.444-0.798) and 'good' for static arthroscopic measurements (0.769; 95% CI, 0.629-0.862). Determining glenoid track status using either 3DCT or static arthroscopic measurements yielded moderate accuracy and reliability. Surgeons using the glenoid track concept to aid surgical decision-making in traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability should utilize 3DCT or static arthroscopic measurements with caution.

Reconsidering "Critical" Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability: 17-Year Follow-Up Study following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

Glenoid bone loss is a risk factor leading to the failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair. While 20-25% glenoid bone loss has long been considered the level to necessitate bony augmentation, recent studies indicate that 13.5% has a "subcritical" glenoid bone loss level, which is associated with decreased short- and medium-term functional scores. Few researchers worked on the long-term effect of "subcritical" or even less severe degrees of glenoid bone loss on redislocation rates and functional outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of subcritical or less severe glenoid bone loss on redislocation rates and function after arthroscopic Bankart repair. A patient cohort who had undergone computed tomography (CT) of glenoid bone loss and arthroscopic Bankart repair over 15 years ago was reviewed. Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, redislocation after operation, mechanism of recurrence, and revision details were reviewed. Seventy-five patients were reassessed 17.6 ± 1.9 years following initial surgery. The age at enrolment was 26.8 ± 8.3 years. Twenty-two (29%) patients of the 75 patients had a redislocation on long-term follow-up, though this was not related to glenoid bone loss severity. The impaired functional score was found in patients with initial glenoid bone loss of 7% or more on long-term follow-up: WOSI (physical symptoms): 0.98 ± 2.00 vs 2.25 ± 4.01, p=0.04 and WOSI (total): 0.79 ± 1.43 vs 1.88 ± 3.56, p=0.04. At a mean of 17.5 years following arthroscopic Bankart repair, redislocation occurs in over a quarter of 75 patients, and they are not related to initial glenoid bone loss severity. Impaired functional outcome is apparent in patients with initial glenoid bone loss of >7%, though this impairment does not seem sufficiently severe to warrant an alternative treatment approach.

Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background: Quantitative analysis of the glenoid face knotless-type anchor placement for arthroscopic Bankart repair has not been reported. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless bioabsorbable anchors depending on the anchor location. Study design: Case series, Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 124 patients (113 men and 11 women; age, 25.6 ± 7.5 years; follow-up time, 46.5 ± 18.2 months [range, 6.2-75.5 months]) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with the bioabsorbable knotless anchor between 2017 and 2021 were included in this study. Among them, 118 patients were observed for >2 years (mean, 48.2 ± 16.8 months [range, 24-75.5 months]) and were analyzed for final clinical and radiologic outcomes. Using postoperative 6-month magnetic resonance imaging, remnant glenoid (%) and labral height were measured. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), radiographic osteoarthritic change, dislocation, apprehension test, and return to sports were recorded. Three groups were established based on the remnant glenoid, which represented the percentage of the exposed glenoid anteroposterior diameter to the original diameter using the best-fit circle method—group A: lower quartile; group B: interquartile; and group C: upper quartile—and variables were analyzed. Results: Overall, the remnant glenoid was 57% ± 6.4% (range, 41.5%-75%) after the surgery. Osteoarthritic change, dislocations, and positive apprehension tests were observed in 5 (4.2%), 4 (3.4%), and 12 (10.2%) patients, respectively. A total of 34 (28.8%) and 64 (54.2%) patients could return to sports without and with restrictions, respectively. Comparing groups A, B, and C, postoperative labral height (7 ± 1, 7 ± 2, and 7 ± 1 mm; P = .623), final osteoarthritic change (1, 4, and 0; P = .440), positive apprehension tests (5, 5, and 2; P = .387), and return to sports (complete/restricted/unable, 6/18/5, 19/29/11, 9/17/4; P = .769) were not different. All ROM were similar across the groups (all P > .054), except for external rotation (ER) at postoperative 6 months (41.3°± 12.8°; 50.2°± 18.5°; and 49.8°± 15.2°; P = .050). However, ER after 1 year was similar across the groups (all P > .544). In further analysis, patients with positive apprehension tests had lower labral height compared with others (5 [4-6] mm and 7 [6-8] mm; P < .001). Conclusion: In arthroscopic Bankart repair, the placement of knotless bioabsorbable anchors on the glenoid face, combined with the remplissage procedure or rotator interval closure, resulted in a low recurrence rate and moderate return to sports. However, most patients had some restrictions in returning to sports. Moreover, this technique was not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including ER deficit, which was not affected by the position of the anchor on the glenoid face for a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Long-term Effectiveness and Outcome-Determining Factors of Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Recreational Sports Population: An Assessment of 100 Patients With a Mean Follow-up of 12.7 Years

Background: A limited number of studies have reported the long-term effectiveness of and associated factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). Purpose: To report the long-term clinical outcomes after ABR in a recreational sports population and identify the associated factors that influence the final instability status. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in patients treated with ABR between 2007 and 2013 by a single surgeon. Patient data, magnetic resonance imaging measurements of bone loss and glenoid track, and intra- and perioperative factors were analyzed. After a minimum follow-up of 10 years, patient-reported outcomes including the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, the Rowe score, the visual analog scale for pain and function, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and sports activity were assessed. The current instability status was classified into 3 groups: stable, apprehensive, and redislocated. These groups were statistically compared with respect to outcomes and associated factors. Results: A total of 100 patients with a mean age of 22.4 ± 5.5 years and a mean follow-up of 12.7 ± 2.1 years were included. At the final follow-up, 38 patients (38%) showed recurrent symptoms: 19 patients (19%) with subjective apprehension and 19 patients (19%) with redislocation, including 10 patients (10%) with revision surgery. At the final follow-up, the redislocated group showed the lowest patient-reported outcomes and return to sports (both P < .001). The apprehensive group also showed a lower Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (P = .011), Rowe score (P = .003), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = .027), and return to sports (P = .005) than the stable group. Participation in contact sports (P = .026), glenoid bone loss (P = .005), size of Hill-Sachs lesion (P = .009), and off-track lesions (P = .016) were all associated with recurrent symptoms, whereas age <20 years (P = .012), participation in contact sports (P = .003), and off-track lesions (P = .042) were associated with redislocation. Conclusion: After long-term follow-up in a recreational sports population, ABR demonstrated a 19% rate of subjective apprehension and 19% rate of redislocation, with a gradual decline in clinical outcomes and sports activity over time. Therefore, candidates for ABR should be selected based on consideration of risk factors such as off-track lesions, age <20 years, and participation in contact sports.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: Asystematic review and meta-analysis.

The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomesand rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using threedatabases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASEand PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studiesand 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported amongstudies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.)or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. Level III.