Revision Bankart Repair Research Articles

Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.

Background/Objectives: Recurrent shoulder instability following Bankart lesion repair often necessitates surgical revision. This systematic review aims to understand the failure rates of arthroscopic revision Bankart repair. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO, this systematic review examined twenty-five articles written between 2000 and 2024. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility across three databases, focusing on recurrent instability as the primary endpoint, while also noting functional measures, adverse events, revision operations, and return-to-sport rates when available. Results: The key surgical techniques for recurrent instability post-Bankart repair were identified, with revision arthroscopic Bankart being the most common (685/1032). A comparative analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence for open coracoid transfer compared to arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (9.67% vs. 17.14%; p < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed between remplissage plus Bankart repair and Bankart repair alone (23.75% vs. 17.14%; p = 0.24). The majority of studies did not include supracritical glenoid bone loss or engaging Hill-Sachs lesions, and neither subcritical nor non-engaging lesions significantly influenced recurrence rates (p = 0.85 and p = 0.80, respectively). Conclusions: Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair remains a viable option in the absence of bipolar bone loss; however, open coracoid transfer appears to have lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic Bankart repair, consistent with prior evidence. Further studies should define cutoffs and investigate the roles of critical glenoid bone loss and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Preoperative measurements of GBL on three-dimensional computed tomography and characterizing lesions based on glenoid track will help surgeons to choose ideal candidates for arthroscopic revision Bankart repair.

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.

Comparison of arthroscopic primary and revision Bankart repair for capsulolabral restoration: a matched-pair analysis.

There have been no previous studies comparing serial radiologic results between primary and revision Bankart repair despite the significance of capsulolabral height and slope restoration. The purpose of this study was (1) to compare serially the height and slope of the repaired labrum in the early postoperative period among primary and revision Bankart repair groups, and (2) to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. This study included each 24 patients who underwent arthroscopic primary Bankart repair (Group A) and revision Bankart repair (Group B) matched by age, sex, and glenoid defect ratio. Postoperative serial radiologic assessment of the repaired labral height and slope was proceeded using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomographic arthrography (CTA) at 3weeks and 6months. There were no significant differences in labral height and slope at 3weeks and 6months postoperatively in Group A. However, significant reductions in labral height and slope were evident between 3weeks and 6months postoperatively in Group B (P < 0.05). Group A yielded superior results to Group B with respect to labral height and slope at each time point (P < 0.05) in between-group analyses. The clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups except for the patients' return to their premorbid sports activity level (P = 0.024). The height and slope of the repaired capsulolabral structures in the early postoperative period after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair group were significantly lower than those of the primary Bankart repair group. Also the reduction of labral height and slope was significant in the revision Bankart repair group over time. Nonetheless, clinical outcomes did not differ significantly except return to premorbid sports activity level at final follow-up.

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: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Although the frequency of arthroscopic revision surgery is increasing in patients with recurrent dislocation after a primary shoulder stabilization, the literature describing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair has been limited. Preferred reporting items for systematic meta-analyses guidelines were followed by utilizing PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Keywords included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, stabilization, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Quality assessments were performed with criteria from the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). A total of 14 articles were included in this analysis. The mean MINORS score was 12.43. A total of 339 shoulders (337 patients) were included (281 males and 56 females). The mean follow-up period was 36.7 months. Primary surgeries were as follows: arthroscopic procedures (n = 172, 50.7%), open procedure (n = 87, 25.7%), and unknown (n = 80, 23.6%). The mean rate of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 15.3% (n = 52), and an additional re-revision procedure was needed in 6.5% of cases (n = 22). Overall, there were 18.0% (n = 61) of complications reported. This systematic review suggests that arthroscopic revision Bankart repair can lead to an improvement in functional outcomes and reasonable patient satisfaction with proper patient selection.

Revisability of polyetheretherketone suture anchors utilised in primary and revision Bankart repair

BackgroundPolyetheretherketone (PEEK) suture anchors are frequently used in Bankart shoulder stabilisation. This study analyzed the primary stability and revisability of PEEK anchors in-vitro in case of primary Bankart repair and revision Bankart repair after failed primary repair. MethodsTo simulate primary Bankart repair, 12 anchors (Arthrex PEEK PushLock® 3.5 mm) were implanted in 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 o'clock positions in cadaveric human glenoids and then cyclically tested. To simulate revision Bankart repair, 12 anchors were implanted in the same manner, over-drilled and 12 new anchors of the same diameter were implanted into the same bone socket as the primary anchors and then cyclically tested. The maximum failure loads (Fmax), system displacements, force at clinical failure and modes of failure were recorded. ResultsOne primary anchor failed prematurely due to a technical problem. Three out of 12 revision anchors (25%) dislocated while setting the 25 N preload. The Fmax, the displacement and clinical failure of the remaining 9 revision anchors were non-significant when compared to the 11 primary repair anchors. The main mode of failure in the primary and revision Bankart surgery group was suture slippage. Anchor dislocations were observed four times in the primary and once in the revision repair groups. ConclusionsRevision Bankart repair using PEEK anchors of the same diameter in a pre-existing bone socket is possible but bears high risk of premature anchor failure and can jeopardize the reconstruction. PEEK suture anchor in revision Bankart surgery should be implanted in a new bone socket if possible.

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

The purposes were to comparethe characteristics of 2 groups of patients who underwent revision Bankart repair with and without glenoid rim fractures and to examine risk factors for glenoid rim fractures. We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients who needed revision surgery after arthroscopic Bankart repair and identified 19 patients with and 20 patients without glenoid rim fractures. The insertion angle of the suture anchor, anchor position on the glenoid, and demographic data were compared between the groups. The mean anchor insertion angles in the glenoid fracture group (group F) at the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-o'clock positions were 64°, 58°, 55°, and 55°, respectively; those in the no-fracture group (group R) were 60°, 63°, 60°, and 55°, respectively (P = .630, P = .207, P = .166, and P = .976, respectively). At the 5-o'clock position, anchors were fixed to the glenoid face in 13 cases in group F and in 3 cases in group R (P = .040). Although age (P = .529) and sex (P = 1.0) did not differ between the groups, elite and professional athletes had a significantly higher incidence of glenoid rim fractures (P = .009). The anchor insertion angle did not affect glenoid rim fracture occurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, the placement of the suture anchor at the 5-o'clock position on the glenoid face could increase the risk of glenoid rim fracture after trauma. Athletes were more likely to have glenoid rim fractures owing to major trauma after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Postoperative Recovery Comparisons of Arthroscopic Bankart to Open Latarjet for the Treatment of Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

Objectives: Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability is a disabling pathology that can be successfully treated by arthroscopic Bankart repair or an open Latarjet procedure. Long-term outcomes have shown lower rates of apprehension, recurrent dislocation and operative revision following Latarjet when compared to Bankart repair. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the short-term post-operative recovery of arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the post-operative recovery following Bankart and the open Latarjet procedure. Methods: The surgical outcomes system (SOS) database (Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL) was used to compare the post-operative recovery outcomes after either a primary or revision arthroscopic Bankart and an open Latarjet procedure. Patients were included who had a minimum of 1 year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative (2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year) time points were evaluated. Outcomes measures included Visual Analog Pain Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Function Score, ASES Shoulder Index Score, and SANE Score. Overall, 787 patients underwent primary Bankart (518 male, 240 female, 4 not recorded), 36 underwent revision Bankart (24 male, 10 female, 2 not recorded) and 75 underwent an open Latarjet procedure (59 male, 12 female, 4 not recorded). The mean age for primary Bankart, revision Bankart, and open Latarjet was 40.8, 38.6 and 32.8 respectively. Additionally, the average BMI for primary Bankart, revision Bankart, and open Latarjet was 27.2, 28.13, and 25.6, respectively. Results: The postoperative recovery curves are displayed in Figure 1. When compared to primary Bankart, open Latarjet demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores at six weeks (p=0.0272) and at three months (p=0.0094). Medium term outcomes for ASES Shoulder Index Score, ASES Shoulder Function Score, and SANE Score, at 1- and 2-years showed no difference between primary Bankart and Latarjet. For the revision Bankart and open Latarjet procedures, the open Latarjet cohort demonstrated significantly higher ASES Shoulder Index Scores at the 3-months (p= 0.0017), 1-year (p= 0.0021), and 2-years (p= 0.0006) timepoints. Open Latarjet patients also had significantly higher ASES Shoulder Function Scores than revision Bankart at 3-months (p= 0.0162), 1-year (p= 0.0083), and 2-years (p= 0.0013). Revision Bankart repair resulted in significantly higher VAS scores than open Latarjet at 2-weeks (p= 0.0025), 6-weeks (p=0.0114), 3-months (p= 0.0024), 1-year (p= 0.0039), and 2-years (p= 0.0007). Conclusion: When compared to Bankart repair, open Latarjet provides improved pain and functional outcomes during the early recovery phase, 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months, and 6-months, with equivalent medium-term outcomes at 1-2-years. Furthermore, when compared to revision Bankart reconstruction, open Latarjet provides improved ASES Shoulder Index Scores, ASES Shoulder Function Scores and VAS Scores at nearly all timepoints. In the treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability, open Latarjet is reasonable option in the primary setting and should be favored over Bankart repair for revision cases with improved pain relief and functional scores.

Arthroscopic Removal of Metallic Suture Anchors Placed after Bankart Repair

Purpose: The aim of this study was to present our surgical outcomes in patients who underwent arthroscopic removal of poorly positioned and/or proud metallic suture anchors applied during or after Bankart repair. Methods: A total of 14 patients who underwent open or arthroscopic Bankart repair with an initial presentation of traumatic shoulder instability between January 2010 and January 2017 and admitted to our center with complaints due to poorly positioned and/or proud metallic suture anchors were enrolled. Pre- and intraoperative findings, surgical outcomes and complications were reviewed. Diagnosis of proud or poorly positioned suture anchors was established using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of shoulder in five cases, and with shoulder arthroscopy in nine patients. Outcomes were measured by the use of the CONSTANT score and American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score. Results: Eleven male and three female patients with an average age of 29.21 ± 5.78 (range, 20 to 42) were enrolled in the present study. Revision Bankart repair was performed arthroscopically in all patients. The mean follow-up period was 40.4 months, ranging from 18 to 64 months. The preoperative Constant and ASES scores were 68.43 ± 7.05 and 38.3 ± 19.4, respectively. Postoperatively, the scores were 89.64 ± 5.39 and 89.07 ± 3.89, respectively (p < 0.01). Conclusion: To conclude, arthroscopy may yield an effective surgical option for removal of poorly positioned and/or proud metallic suture anchors after Bankart repair. However, further clinical reports on larger series are warranted to document the efficacy of this procedure in selected cases.

Back to Sports After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair.

Background:Recurrent instability following primary arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder is a common complication. Young, athletic patients are at the greatest risk of recurring instability. To date, the literature contains insufficient description regarding whether return to sports is possible after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.Hypothesis:Patients presenting with recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic stabilization should expect limitations in terms of their ability to partake in sporting activities after revision surgery.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:Twenty athletes who underwent arthroscopic revision stabilization of the shoulder after failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair were included in the study after completing inclusion and exclusion criteria surveys. Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), Shoulder Sport Activity Score (SSAS), and the Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sports (SPORTS) scores were determined to assess the participants’ ability to partake in sporting activities. Furthermore, sport type and sport level were classified and recorded. To assess function and stability, Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant-Murley, and Walch-Duplay scores were measured and recorded.Results:Follow-up consultations were carried out after a mean of 28.7 months. The mean age at follow-up examination was 27.75 years. At the time of follow-up, 70% of the patients were able to return to their original sporting activities at the same level. However, 90% of patients described a limitation in their shoulder when participating in their sports. At 28.7 months after surgery, the mean ASOSS score was 76.8; the SSAS score decreased from 7.85 before first-time dislocation to 5.35 at follow-up (P < .005). The SPORTS score was 5.2 out of 10 at the follow-up consultation. Function- and instability-specific scores showed good to excellent results. The mean external rotational deficit for high external rotation was 9.25°, and for low external rotation it was 12°.Conclusion:Patients can return to their original type and level of sport after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair, but they must expect persistent deficits and limitations to the shoulder when put under the strains of sporting activity. Patients with shoulder injuries who partake in sports that put greater demand on the shoulder show the smallest probabilities of returning to sporting activity.

Rotator cuff muscular integrity after arthroscopic revision of a Bankart repair.

Recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair is still a common complication. For primary Bankart repair studies have shown that the rotator cuff can recover completely. The ability of muscles to regenerate after arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (ARBR) has not been studied. Does the ARBR using a three-portal method allows complete muscle integrity compared with an uninjured imaging control group (ICG)? Twenty-two (1 female, 21 males) physically active patients (mean age at follow-up 28.5±7.1years; mean follow-up 27.5months±8.5) were assessed. ARBR with a three-portal method was carried out in all patients according to previous primary arthroscopic stabilization of the shoulder (revision Bankart group). Muscle atrophy of the subscapularis muscle (SSC), supraspinatus muscle (SSP) and infraspinatus muscle (ISP) was assessed by making lateral and vertical measurements by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Fatty infiltration was detected by standardized assessment from variations in intensity. Detailed clinical examination of the rotator cuff was carried out. MRI assessment was compared with that of a control group of 22 healthy volunteers of same age and activity level (ICG). For the SSC, no muscle impairment was noted compared with the ICG [superior atrophy index (sAISSC), p=0.439; inferior atrophy index (iAISSC), p=0.555; superior fatty infiltration index (sFDISSC), p=0.294; inferior fatty infiltration index (iFDISSC), p=0.62]. In investigation of the SSP and ISP, fatty infiltration was not shown (FDISSP, p=0.454; sFDIISP, p=0.504), though persistent muscle atrophy was found even>2years after surgery compared with the ICG (AISSP, p=0.0025; sAIISP, p=0.0009; iAIISP, p=0.0004). ARBR using a three-portal method allowed good muscular integrity compared with the ICG, but with persistent slight muscular atrophy of the SSP and ISP.

Shoulder &amp; Elbow

The August 2015 Shoulder &amp; Elbow Roundup360 looks at: Clavicular fractures are being fixed – but how?; Propionibacterium acnes: a pain in the shoulder?; Bacteria, armpits and arthroplasty; Living longer, but unhappy: the woes of shoulder arthroplasty in the under 50s; Recurrent dislocations in the adolescent population; Splinting for elbow stiffness; Revision Bankart repair

Good Results with Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair

Good Results with Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair

Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: A Preliminary Evaluation

Arthroscopic stabilization of primary, recurrent anterior shoulder instability has become the procedure of choice with infrequent exceptions. Failures of stabilization can and do occur. This is a Level IV retrospective analysis of arthroscopic revision Bankart surgery performed on 15 non-consecutive patients over a 4-year period with an average 22-month follow-up. The average patient age was 27.5 with 12 men and 3 women. Four of the 15 failures were from the senior author's (R.K.N.R.) practice with the remaining 11 referred for treatment. Four of the 15 failures resulted from open surgery while the remaining 11 failed an arthroscopic stabilization procedure. Four contact/collision athletes were included, and significant bone loss was recorded in 5 patients. Operative findings included 10 recurrent Bankart lesions while 9 patients were felt to demonstrate capsular attenuation. Fourteen of the 15 had a Hill-Sachs lesion while chondromalacic change involving the anterior glenoid was noted in 13 of the 15 patients. A suture anchor technique was used with an average of 2.5 double-loaded suture anchors. In this series, 4 failures occurred after revision arthroscopic stabilization (27%) with an average SANE score of 86 (range, 65-100). One of the 5 patients with significant bone loss sustained a recurrence while 1 of 4 contact athletes failed the revision arthroscopic stabilization. Two of the 4 failures in this study subsequently underwent an open bone block procedure. Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair can be an effective alternative, but should only be considered in the properly selected patient.

サルベージ手術としての鏡視下 Bankart 修復術 - 外傷性肩関節前方不安定症に対する直視下手術後再脱臼例の検討 -

サルベージ手術としての鏡視下 Bankart 修復術 - 外傷性肩関節前方不安定症に対する直視下手術後再脱臼例の検討 -

Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair: A prospective outcome study

Purpose: The clinical outcome of the revision surgery for the failed Bankart repair is not well known. The purpose of this study was to prospectively analyze a series of patients with recurrent instability after primary Bankart repair that were revised arthroscopically using a suture-anchor technique. Type of Study: Prospective, nonrandomized outcome study. Methods: Twenty-three patients with failed Bankart repair were treated with arthroscopic surgery and were followed up for a mean of 36 months (range, 24-52 months; SD, 9 months). There were 21 men and 2 women with the mean age of 24 years (range, 17-34 years; SD, 4.4 years). Eight patients had previously received an open Bankart repair (5 transosseous-suture technique, 3 suture-anchor technique), and 15 had received an arthroscopic repair (10 transglenoid multiple-suture technique, 5 suture-anchor technique). The revision surgery included repair of the anterior labrum using suture anchors and nonabsorbable sutures, capsular plication, and proximal shift of the inferior capsule with or without closure of the rotator interval. The characteristics of the patients, possible modes of failure, surgical findings, shoulder scores (University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA] scale, Simple Shoulder Test, and Rowe score), and clinical outcome were evaluated. Results: Recurrent instability developed at a mean of 21 months (range, 11-39 months; SD, 8 months) after the initial stabilization. A possible cause of failure in 5 patients was a nonanatomic repair, with the labral tissue fixed proximal or medial to the glenoid margin. At the follow-up, 15 patients had excellent results, 4 good, 3 fair, and 1 poor, according to the UCLA scale. The mean Rowe score improved from 87.3 (range, 30-100; SD, 12.6) to 91.2 (range, 40-100; SD, 14.2) (P =.023). The Simple Shoulder Test responses improved from 8 yes responses preoperatively to 11 postoperatively. Eighteen patients achieved an activity return of more than 90% of preinjury level. Five patients had recurrence after revision surgery (1 frank dislocation, 2 subluxation, 2 positive anterior apprehension sign). Engagement in contact sports was correlated with the recurrence (r =.683, P =.003). With the number available, no significant difference could be detected in the outcome between the types of the primary surgery. Arthroscopic revision Bankart repair did not result in any additional loss of external rotation compared with the contralateral side (P =.723). The most predictable factor for the functional return was preoperative range of external rotation (r =.793, P =.001). Conclusions: Arthroscopic revision Bankart surgery using suture anchors can provide a satisfactory outcome, including a low recurrence rate and reliable functional return, in carefully selected patients.Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 18, No 5 (May-June), 2002: pp 469–482

Congenital Anteroinferior Instability Treated by Bankart Repair

A subset of patients with symptomatic anteroinferior instability of the shoulder has been recognized. All patients had a history of minimal trauma that was not related to their symptoms. There were 29 men and four women, averaging 29 years of age. Forty-five percent of the patients had failed treatment for associated impingement syndrome. Eleven patients had 17 operations on the shoulder that failed to relieve pain. Preoperative duration of symptoms ranged from four to 130 months (average, 28 months). No Hill-Sachs lesions were present. After a Bankart stabilization, wherein 11 of 33 shoulders had labral tears, pain relief was achieved in 27 of 33 patients. Three additional patients had pain relief after a second-stage acromioplasty. Thus, three of 15 patients with associated impingement syndrome required a second-stage acromioplasty (20%). In summary, 30 of 33 patients had pain relief. There were three failures. Two of the three patients had multidirectional instability. One of these was lost to follow-up evaluation. Another, repaired by a capsular shift, has no further dislocations. One patient required a revision Bankart repair after he sustained a traumatic tear of the capsule ten days after his initial operation; there was no recurrence. The Bankart operation is a worthwhile procedure for congenital unidirectional anteroinferior instability with or without impingement syndrome. It should be done first rather than initially treating the associated impingement.