Failed Bankart Repair Research Articles

The Arthroscopically Guided Bristow-Latarjet Procedure With Cortical Button Fixation: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

Background: Despite improved visualization, the use of arthroscopic surgery to perform the Latarjet procedure has not decreased the rates of complications and glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) in the long term. Many of the reported complications are related to the use of screws for bone block fixation with freehand drilling. Purpose: To evaluate the long-term (at a minimum 10-year follow-up) clinical and radiological outcomes of the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure using a posterior guided drilling technique and suture button for coracoid bone graft fixation. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure with suture button fixation between 2011 and 2013 were reviewed by 2 independent evaluators. Complications and revision surgery were recorded, and we evaluated patient-reported outcomes including subjective scores, recurrence of shoulder instability (dislocation or subluxation), range of motion limitations, and return to sports. Patients had radiographs taken at least 10 years after surgery to assess glenohumeral OA according to the Samilson-Prieto classification system and computed tomography scans to assess bone block positioning and healing. Results: A total of 65 consecutive patients (68 shoulders) with a mean follow-up of 135 months (range, 120-156 months) were included. The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 ± 8 years; 7 patients had previous failed Bankart repair. At follow-up, 94% (64/68) of the shoulders had no recurrence of instability. The 4 cases of instability recurrence were traumatic and occurred at 3 weeks (a fall), 4 months, 2 years, and 7 years after surgery. No hardware failures, coracoid fractures, or neurological complications were observed. Overall, 61 patients (94%) were still participating in sports, with 44 (68%) at the same or higher level. Range of motion showed nonsignificant restrictions in external rotation with the arm at the side (7° ± 9°) and with the arm at 90° of abduction (9° ± 10°) compared with the contralateral side. Additionally, 11 shoulders (16%) had some residual anterior apprehension on clinical examination. At last follow-up, 77% (47/61) of the shoulders had no OA development or progression. Previous failed Bankart repair was a risk factor for the development of OA. Patients with OA had significantly lower Subjective Shoulder Value scores (79% vs 91%, respectively; P = .01) and decreased external rotation with the arm at the side (40° vs 65°, respectively; P = .001) compared with patients with no or little OA. Conclusion: The arthroscopically guided Bristow-Latarjet procedure with suture button fixation is a safe and durable surgical treatment method for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, allowing a high rate of return to sports without significant motion restrictions and no or little OA in the long term.

Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

BackgroundThe role of arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be definitively established and merits further investigation. ObjectiveTo assess clinical and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision procedure for failed Bankart repair, as well as the return to athletic activity and complication rates. MethodsBetween 2009 and 2020, patients with a previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair who were treated with an arthroscopic Latarjet were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical outcomes at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively included Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome score (CS), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Dislocations, subluxations, complications, pre and postoperative level of activity and degree of osteoarthritis were also assessed. ResultsA total of 77 patients, mean age at revision surgery 31.2 ± 9.1 and with either one (n = 59), two (n = 13), or three (n = 4) arthroscopic previous stabilizations underwent revision surgery using arthroscopic Latarjet procedure were studied. Postoperatively, the mean ROWE and CS scores increased from 41.8 ± 16 to 90.7 ± 14.3 (p<0.001) and from 50.5 ± 13.8 to 90.5 ± 10.3 (p<0.001), respectively. WOSI decreased from 1247 ± 367.6 to 548.9 ± 363 at the final follow-up (p<0.001). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 23.1 months, 64 shoulders (83.1%) were subjectively graded as good to excellent using SANE score. Grade 1, 2, and 3 osteoarthritis, according to Ogawa et al were found in 18 (23.4%), 6 (7.8%), and 3 (3.9%) shoulders, respectively. Six dislocations after revision surgery were reported (7.8%). In four failed cases an Eden-Hybinette procedure was conducted and in remaining two patients an arthroscopic extraarticular anterior capsular reinforcement was performed. Significantly decreased level of athletic activity was observed postoperatively (p= 0.01). ConclusionsArthroscopic Latarjet for revision of failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory patient-reported subjective outcomes with low rate of recurrences and complications. However, decreased level of athletic activity is expected.

Long-term results of arthroscopic capsulolabral revision repair for failed anterior shoulder instability repair using suture anchors at a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

Arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder instability repair has been proposed, and early clinical results have been promising. However, long-term results after this procedure and the probable risk factors for failure have not been sufficiently discussed in the literature. Thirty-eight patients who were diagnosed with recurrent anteroinferior shoulder instability after failed Bankart repair, treated with ACRR between September 1998 and November 2003 and able to be contacted were included. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study due to the use of SureTak anchors for fixation, and 5 other patients refused to participate in the study due to lack of interest (3 patients) or lack of time (2 patients). The remaining shoulders were clinically examined at a minimum of ten years after surgery via the ASES, Constant, AAOS, Rowe, Dawson and VAS scores for pain and stability. Degenerative arthropathy was assessed with the modified Samilson-Prieto score. All 31 remaining shoulders were evaluated at a mean time of 11.86 years (142.4 months) after surgery. Six patients (19.35%) reported redisolcation after the revision procedure, 4 of whom were affected by a new significant shoulder trauma. The ROWE and Constant scores improved significantly. Moderate to severe dislocation arthropathy was observed in 19.4% of patients. Five patients (16.2%) were not satisfied with the procedure. Long-term follow-up after ACRR shows predictable results, with a high degree of patient satisfaction, good to excellent patient-reported outcome scores and minimal radiological degenerative changes. However, with an average recurrence rate of 19.3% after 11.86 years, the redislocation rate appears high. With careful patient selection, recurrence rates can be significantly reduced.

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.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background: The role of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be established. Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes, recurrences, and complication rates of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet as a primary procedure. Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and underwent arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization between 2009 and 2018. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on whether Latarjet was performed after a previous instability surgery (revision) or as a primary surgery (primary). Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome (CMSO) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) were assessed pre- and postoperatively with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. In addition, pre- and postoperative levels of sports activity, dislocations, subluxations, and complications were assessed. Results: A total of 97 patients (n = 62 revision; n = 35 primary), with a mean age of 31.0 ± 8.8 and 29.4 ± 7.6 years old in the revision and primary Latajet group, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up in the revision group was 32 months (24-53) and 35.5 months (27.7-42.2) in the primary Latarjet group. No significant differences between groups were observed in Rowe score (revision = 91.4, primary = 94.1; P = .223), CMSO score (revision = 90.7, primary = 94; P = .105), and SANE (revision = 85.8, primary = 87.3; P = .683) postoperatively. However, the postoperative difference in the WOSI score between the revision and primary Latarjet groups was nearly significant (510 ± 334 vs 403 ± 343, respectively; P = .05). Four (6.4%) postoperative dislocations were reported in the revision and 1 (2.8%) in the primary Latarjet group (P = .14). Patients in the revision group had a lower return to the previous level of sports participation (P = .008) and decreased external rotation with the arm by the side compared with the primary Latarjet group (P = .000). Conclusion: Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery is a reasonable surgical option in failed Bankart repair cases. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. However, a decreased level of postoperative sports participation and external rotation with the arm by the side can be expected.

Previously failed Bankart repair and the duration from first dislocation to surgery were the risk factors associated with the level of return to sports after coracoid transfer.

This study aims to determine the rate of different levels of return to sports (RTS) in athletes undergoing the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure and the factors associated with the level of RTS. The study was performed retrospectively on patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability who underwent the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The RTS rate, the level of return and the timing of return were assessed. Additionally, factors such as preoperative basic information, clinical outcomes, graft position, graft healing and graft absorption were analysed to investigate their correlation with the level of RTS. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the factors affecting the level of RTS. In total, this study included 182 shoulders of 177 athletes undergoing the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure. Of these patients, 142 (78.0%) shoulders of 137 athletes were enrolled, with a mean of 3.3-year follow-up. At the final follow-up, 134 (94.4%) shoulders were able to RTS, 123 (86.6%) shoulders were able to RTS to the pre-injury level, 52 (36.6%) shoulders could be completely "forgotten" without any psychological barrier during exercise. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the variable associated with RTS at the pre-injury level as previously failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (p < 0.001). As for the "forgetting" operated shoulder, the duration from first dislocation to surgery was a significant independent predictor (p = 0.034). Although a large majority of athletes were able to RTS at the pre-injury level after the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure, about two-thirds of the athletes felt difference in shoulders on both sides and could not completely "forget" the operated shoulder during exercise. Previously failed Bankart repair and the duration from first dislocation to surgery were the risk factors associated with the level of RTS after the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure. IV.

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to compare the clinical results of revision Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair. A literature search was performed in databases, such as Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies tool. Studies for failed Bankart repair with revision Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure were included. The pain VAS, ROWE score, rate of return to sports and preinjury level of sports, recurrent instability, range of motion, and complications were compared. Additionally, the pain VAS, ROWE score, forward flexion, and external rotation at side were subjected to a meta-analysis. Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review. The functional outcomes in terms of the ROWE score, recurrent instability, return to sports, and the preinjury level of sports was better in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (ROWE score, 91 vs. 86.7; recurrent instability rate, 3.5% vs. 14.4%; return to sports rate, 100% vs. 87.9%; return to preinjury level of sports rate, 89.9% vs. 74.9%; all P < 0.001). However, the results of postoperative pain and the postoperative limitation of external rotation at side were worse in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (pain VAS, 1.4 vs. 0.8; postoperative external rotation at side, 38° vs. 60°; all P < 0.001). In addition, the majority of the complications occurred in the Latarjet procedure group. In the meta-analysis, the postoperative ROWE score was significantly higher in the Latarjet procedure group than that in the revision Bankart group (revision Bankart repair: 95% CI 88.9-80.9, I2 = 65.70; Latarjet procedure: 95% CI 95.8-88.1, I2 = 93.37; P = 0.014). However, the pain VAS, forward flexion, and external rotation at side did not reach the significant level in the meta-analysis. Compared with revision Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair showed better ROWE scores, stability, and return to sports or preinjury level of sports; however, the postoperative pain and the limitation of external rotation at side were worse with more complications. KUMC 2022-01-024. Level IV.

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

All-suture anchors have been used for primary arthroscopic Bankart repair because of their ability to minimize initial bone loss. To evaluate the clinical efficacy of using all-suture anchors in revision arthroscopic labral repair after failed Bankart repair. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Enrolled in this study were 28 patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair with all-suture anchors after a failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Revision surgery was determined for patients who had a frank redislocation history with subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), nonengaged Hill-Sachs lesion, or off-track lesion. Minimum 2-year postoperative outcomes were evaluated using shoulder range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, apprehension, and the redislocation rate. Postoperative shoulder anteroposterior radiographs were assessed to evaluate arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint. The mean patient age was 28.1 ± 6.5 years, and the mean time between primary Bankart repair and revision surgery was 5.4 ± 4.1 years. Compared with the number of suture anchors used in the primary operation, significantly more all-suture anchors were inserted in the revision surgery (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 5.8 ± 1.3, P < .001). During the mean follow-up period of 31.8 ± 10.1 months, 3 patients (10.7%) required reoperation because of traumatic redislocation and symptomatic instability. Of patients with symptoms that did not require reoperation, 2 patients (7.1%) had subjective instability with apprehension depending on the arm position. There was no significant change between preoperative and postoperative ROM. However, ASES (preoperative: 61.2 ± 13.3 to postoperative: 81.4 ± 10.4, P < .01) and Rowe (preoperative: 48.7 ± 9.3 to postoperative: 81.7 ± 13.2, P < .01) scores were significantly improved after revision surgery. Eight patients (28.6%) showed arthritic changes in the glenohumeral joint on final plain anteroposterior radiographs. Revision arthroscopic labral repair using all-suture anchors demonstrated satisfactory 2-year clinical outcomes in terms of functional improvement. Postoperative stability was obtained in 82% of patients without recurrent shoulder instability after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Complications of the Open Latarjet Procedure are not Related to the Learning Curve: Analysis after 11 Years of Experience

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to determine a relationship between complications of the open Latarjet procedure with the surgeon’s learning curve during an 11-year experience in shoulder surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive observational case series of all open Latarjet procedures performed by a single shoulder surgeon between June 2011 and September 2021. Latarjet procedure was indicated in patients with glenoid bone defects of more than 15% or revision after a failed Bankart repair. Complications were recorded as well as patients’ demographic data. We described the time between surgery and complication and correlated complication presentation with the surgeon’s surgical curve. Results: Sixty-two consecutive patients were included (96, 8% male patients with an average age of 30 years). Eight patients presented with a complication (12, 5% of all patients). These complications were classified as graft related (n = 3), hardware related (n = 3), wound related (n = 1), and other (n = 1). There were no instability recurrences and no neurologic injuries. Complications were present in all periods of the surgeon’s learning curve. Conclusions: The Latarjet procedure is technically demanding and complications can be present regardless of the surgeon’s learning curve. Nevertheless, it is a successful procedure in most patients, with a low recurrence rate of instability.

Modified All-Arthroscopic Metal-Free Latarjet with Cerclage Tape for Recurrent Shoulder Dislocation with Critical Glenoid Bone Loss: Technical Note

Latarjet procedure involving coracoid bone transfer has been the preferred method of treatment for anterior shoulder instability with critical glenoid bone loss, failed Bankart repair, severe soft tissue insufficiency, bipolar bone lesions, and young patients involved in contact sports. Screw-related complications were the most common reason for revision surgery following the Latarjet procedure. We describe an all-arthroscopic method of Latarjet procedure with cerclage fiber tape (Arthrex) and a modified technique for performing the procedure in this technical note.

Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of All-Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure With Modified Suture Button Fixation: Excellent Bone Healing With a Low Complication Rate

To investigate the clinical outcomes and radiologic evaluation of an all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with modified button fixation. Patients who received all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with modified suture button fixation between September 2015 to September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for surgery were recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with any 1 of these 3 conditions: glenoid defect >15%, contact-sport athlete, or failure after Bankart repair. Inclusion criteria included cases who received this surgery. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by University of California Los Angeles, ASES and Rowe score with a minimal follow-up of 3 years. Radiologic assessment on 3D computed tomography scan was performed preoperatively and postoperatively at different time points. Complications were also recorded. A total of 30 patients were eventually included in this study. The mean follow-up time was 38.0 ± 2.5 months. There were 25 patients who performed contact sports. Of them, 10 patients were without glenoid defect >15% or failed Bankart repair. The remaining 20 patients had glenoid defect >15%, including 2 failed Bankart cases. Ten patients had glenoid defect < 13.5%, and the rest 20 patients had > 13.5%. UCLA, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and Rowe score significantly improved during follow-up, and the improvement exceeded MCID for all patients. No severe complications were noted. In total, 86.7% of the graft positioning was measured as flush and 13.3% as medial. The bone union rate was 96.7% at 3 months postoperatively and at final follow-up. The remodeling process for the restoration of the normal anatomy of the lower part of glenoid was noted. All-arthroscopic Latarjet with modified suture button fixation can achieve stable fixation of the coracoid, good clinical outcomes (all patients with improvement exceeding MCID), low complications rate. Furthermore, the bone remodeling process contributes to the recovery of the normal anatomy of anteroinferior glenoid. Case series; Level of evidence,4.

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

Failure of a well-executed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes is difficult to predict and its management is a lesser investigated area with uncertain outcome in terms of return to sports (RTS). This study analyses effectiveness of revision Bankart repair with remplissage for failed Bankart repair in non-contact athletes, focusing on time and level of RTS. Fifty-five consecutive non-contact athletes with evidence of instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair having glenoid loss < 25% and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion were included in the study according to algorithm mentioned. All cases underwent revision arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and followed-up for 24months. Rowe, UCLA, WOSI and Quick-DASH scores were recorded preoperative and at 24months. RTS was allowed after unilateral seated shot-put test. Out of 55 cases, 6 were excluded because of poor tissue quality, 7 were lost to follow-up. Forty-two cases with a mean age of 28.2 ± 5.2years were included. Mean duration between primary surgery and failure was 7.3 ± 1.4months with a mean 1.9 redislocations. The mean Rowe, WOSI, UCLA, Quick-DASH scores improved from 37 to 89, 39.3 to 83.7%, 18.4 to 30.5, 45.3 to 18.7 at 24months. Thirty-five cases could RTS in a mean time 15.4 ± 1.4months. Out of seven cases who could not RTS, four had instability, one had pain and two voluntarily quit sports. Revision Bankart repair with remplissage is a feasible option for failed primary Bankart repair in non-contact athletes who have glenoid bone loss < 25% with off-track Hill-Sachs. Level IV.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss.

Background:Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization.Purpose/Hypothesis:To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures.Results:No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups.Conclusion:Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair.

Failure Rates After Revision Arthroscopic Stabilization for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability Based on Anterior Capsulolabral Complex Conditions.

Background:A labral retear is an important contributing factor to surgical failure after arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. However, surgeons frequently encounter poor tissue conditions in the anterior capsule, such as capsular tears, during revision surgery.Purpose:To analyze the clinical outcomes and failure rates of revision arthroscopic stabilization after failed Bankart repair based on the tissue conditions of the anterior capsule and the labrum. Outcomes were compared for revision after failed Bankart repair because of a labral retear versus a healed labrum but with capsular tears.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A total of 55 patients who underwent revision arthroscopic stabilization after failed Bankart repair were included. Revision surgery was indicated if patients had a history of recurrent instability with positive apprehension test results, regardless of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of a labral retear. Patients were allocated into 2 groups based on arthroscopic findings at the time of revision surgery: group 1 consisted of patients who had a healed labrum with definite anterior capsular tears, and group 2 comprised patients who had labral retears without capsular tears. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, and surgical failure rate.Results:Overall, 10 patients were included in group 1, and 45 patients were included in group 2. No capsular tears were detected on preoperative MRI or magnetic resonance arthrography scans in either group, whereas all patients in group 2 had evidence of anterior labral retears on imaging scans. After revision surgery, 9 patients (16.4%) showed surgical failure by 25.6 months postoperatively. Patients in group 1 had a significantly higher surgical failure rate than did those in group 2 (4 patients [40.0%] vs 5 patients [11.1%], respectively; P = .04). The incidence of capsular tears was significantly higher in patients with surgical failure versus those without surgical failure (44.4% vs 13.0%, respectively; P = .04).Conclusion:A capsular tear of the anterior capsulolabral complex was an important indicator for surgical failure after revision arthroscopic stabilization. If patients demonstrate symptomatic instability after arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization without evidence of labral retears on imaging scans, an anterior capsular tear should be considered as a possible factor for recurrence.

Latarjet Cerclage: The All-Arthroscopic Metal-Free Fixation

The Bristow–Latarjet procedure has been one of the most recognized procedures for the treatment of recurrent shoulder dislocation with anterior glenoid bone loss, revision surgery after failed Bankart repair, contact and collision sport injuries, and patients with a high risk of recurrence. Open and arthroscopic approaches have recently shown similar outcomes by several authors. However, complications related to metal implants, despite being low, are still a matter of concern. We describe an all-arthroscopic Latarjet technique with a metal-free fixation method using 2 ultra-high-strength sutures, creating a cerclage construct through 2.4mm glenoid and coracoid tunnels with a final capsulolabral complex reconstruction.

High Rate of Return to Sports and Low Recurrences With the Latarjet Procedure in High-Risk Competitive Athletes With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss

PurposeTo analyze return to sports, functional outcomes, and complications following the Latarjet procedure in competitive athletes with anterior glenohumeral instability and glenoid bone loss <20%.MethodsAll the included patients were operated between 2010 and 2016. The inclusion criteria were competitive athletes with anterior glenohumeral instability, a glenoid bone defect <20% who participated in contact sports, forced overhead sports, or had a previous failed Bankart repair and had a minimum 2 years’ follow-up. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System score were used to assess functional outcomes. Complications and bone consolidation were also evaluated.ResultsA total of 65 athletes were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 53 months (±13), and the mean age was 23.9 years (range, 16-31 years). Overall, 94% were able to return to sports and 84% returned at the same level. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .001). No significant difference in shoulder ROM and functional scores was found between primary and revision cases. The total complication rate was 11% and the revision rate was 1.5% The recurrence rate was 4.6%. The bone block healed in 95% of the cases.ConclusionsIn high-risk competitive athletes with anterior glenohumeral instability and glenoid bone loss <20%, the Latarjet procedure resulted in excellent functional outcomes, with most of the patients returning to sports and at the same level they had before injury with a low rate of recurrencesLevel of EvidenceTherapeutic case series; Level of evidence, IV

Un échec préalable de « Bankart » arthroscopique est un facteur indépendant de résultat inférieur après intervention de Latarjet

BackgroundThere is limited evidence that the Latarjet procedure has a worse outcome as a revision operation, after a failed stabilization surgery, compared with when it is the primary procedure for posttraumatic antero-inferior instability of the shoulder joint. PurposeTo compare the results from Latarjet as a primary operation vs. revision surgery after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair for posttraumatic antero-inferior shoulder instability. In addition, to assess the effect of preoperative bony pathology on outcome. Patients and methodsNinety-nine patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure (47 primary, 52 revision after failed Bankart repair) were analyzed after an average of 3.8 (SD 2.3, range 1–11) years of follow-up. All patients underwent either computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively. Glenoid and humeral bone defects were measured to assess whether the Hill-Sachs lesion was on- or off-track. Clinical outcome measures included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), subjective shoulder value (SSV), and recurrence of instability (dislocation, subluxation, or any perception of instability). ResultsThere were no cases of recurrent dislocation in either group. Four patients in the primary surgery group and 13 in the revision group had at least one subluxation or perception of instability after the Latarjet procedure. Patients with a previous arthroscopic Bankart repair had worse outcomes than those undergoing primary Latarjet when assessed by the WOSI: 76 (SD 22) vs. 85 (SD 15), difference in means −9 (95 % CI −17 to −1, p=0.02); SSV: 80 (SD 18) vs. 88 (SD 13), difference in means −8 (95 % CI −15 to −2, p=0.01); and the recurrence percentage (25 % vs. 9 %, p=0.03). A multivariate linear regression model adjusted for the length of follow-up, glenoid bone defect size, Hill-Sachs lesion size, and the frequency of preoperative bipolar bone defects (on/off track Hill-Sachs lesions) further increased the difference in WOSI to −12 (95 % CI −21 to −4, p=0.005). DiscussionA previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair was a significant independent risk factor for inferior outcome. Preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from the revision vs. primary Latarjet procedure. Level of evidenceIV, cohort observational study.

Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure

BackgroundThere is limited evidence that the Latarjet procedure has a worse outcome as a revision operation, after a failed stabilization surgery, compared with when it is the primary procedure for posttraumatic anteroinferior instability of the shoulder joint. PurposeTo compare the results from Latarjet as a primary operation vs. revision surgery after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair for posttraumatic anteroinferior shoulder instability. In addition, to assess the effect of preoperative bony pathology on outcome. Patients and methodsNinety-nine patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure (47 primary, 52 revision after failed Bankart repair) were analyzed after an average of 3.8 (SD 2.3, range 1–11) years of follow-up. All patients underwent either computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively. Glenoid and humeral bone defects were measured to assess whether the Hill-Sachs lesion was on- or off-track. Clinical outcome measures included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), subjective shoulder value (SSV), and recurrence of instability (dislocation, subluxation, or any perception of instability). ResultsThere were no cases of recurrent dislocation in either group. Four patients in the primary surgery group and 13 in the revision group had at least one subluxation or perception of instability after the Latarjet procedure. Patients with a previous arthroscopic Bankart repair had worse outcomes than those undergoing primary Latarjet when assessed by the WOSI: 76 (SD 22) vs. 85 (SD 15), difference in means −9 (95% CI −17 to −1, p=0.02); SSV: 80 (SD 18) vs. 88 (SD 13), difference in means −8 (95% CI −15 to −2, p=0.01); and the recurrence percentage (25% vs. 9%, p=0.03). A multivariate linear regression model adjusted for the length of follow-up, glenoid bone defect size, Hill-Sachs lesion size, and the frequency of preoperative bipolar bone defects (on/off track Hill-Sachs lesions) further increased the difference in WOSI to −12 (95% CI −21 to −4, p=0.005). DiscussionA previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair was a significant independent risk factor for inferior outcome. Preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from the revision vs. primary Latarjet procedure. Level of evidenceIV, cohort observational study.

Outcomes of the Latarjet procedure for the treatment of chronic anterior shoulder instability: patients with prior arthroscopic Bankart repair versus primary cases

ObjectivesThe two most common surgical interventions for recurrent anterior shoulder instability include arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure. However, indications for each procedure remain debated between surgeons with 90% of surgeons (except French surgeons) preferring soft tissue Bankart repair initially. It remains unclear whether the results of a Latarjet procedure performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair differ from those performed for primary cases. The purpose of our study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients who had undergone a Latarjet as a primary surgery versus those who had had a Latarjet as revision surgery for a failed arthroscopic Bankart repairMethodsPatients who had undergone open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure between 2003 and 2015 in 5 fellowship-trained surgical practices were included. Charts were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who had undergone a primary Latarjet or those who had had a Bankart repair prior to the Latarjet. Age, ISIS score, BMI, sports activity, hyperlaxity and delay before surgery were retrospectively collected. Outcome measures were prospectively collected, including range of motion, SSV, Walch-Duplay, scores, recurrence of instability, apprehension or new surgery.ResultsA total of 311 patients were included. 28% of the patients were lost to follow-up and the mean follow-up was 3.4 years +/-0.8. There were 21 patients who had had a Bankart repair prior to the Latarjet procedure. Both populations were comparable regarding preoperative data. The postoperative instability rate was 3% in the overall population; 4.8% in the “primary Latarjet” group and 2.3% in the ”Latarjet for failed Bankart” group. This difference was not significant (p=0.50). However, the mean Walch-Duplay score was significantly lower and the pain scores significantly higher in patients who had had a prior Bankart repair: 51.9 +/- 25 versus 72.1 +/- 25.2 and 2.5/10 versus 1.2/10 respectively. The Simple Shoulder Test was comparable in both groups.ConclusionThe study confirms that the Latarjet is an effective procedure to treat primary chronic anterior instability and also to stabilize a shoulder after a failed Bankart repair. However, the thought that a Bankart repair does not “burn any bridges” appears to be incorrect relative to postoperative pain and functional scores in the setting of future Latarjet procedure.

Evaluation of the Instability Severity Index score in predicting failure following arthroscopic Bankart surgery in an active military population

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) score is a preoperative risk stratification tool used to identify patients at heightened risk of recurrent anterior instability after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure. The primary objective of this study was to validate the utility of the ISI score in predicting failure of primary arthroscopic Bankart surgery in an active-duty military population. A retrospective study was performed to compare all military service members undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repairs at a single military treatment facility between 2007 and 2014. The primary outcome of interest was surgical failure due to recurrent instability. The ISI framework was used to stratify each patient for recurrence, and multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the composite ISI score and individual domains between patients with and patients without failed Bankart repairs. A total of 131 patients were identified, with a mean patient age of 26.8 years (range, 19-47 years), among whom 42 patients (32%) were identified as having a higher-demand military occupation. At a minimum 2-year follow-up, 34 patients (26%) sustained recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The mean ISI score of patients in the failed Bankart repair group was not statistically different than that of patients with a successful repair (3.41 vs 3.5, P = .74), and no individual ISI domains were identified as independent risk factors for subsequent surgical failure or revision stabilization. Contrary to the findings of previous validation studies, the composite ISI score and its individual risk factors were not predictive of subsequent surgical failure after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in an active military population.