Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss Research Articles

Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift versus isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A prospective study

BackgroundOpen Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift and isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair have never been prospectively compared under the concept of glenoid track in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, range of motion and recurrence rate between these two surgical techniques. We hypothesized that open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift would provide similar functional outcomes to isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair but with a lower recurrence rate. MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted with 86 collision athletes divided into two groups of 43 patients each. All patients had a subcritical glenoid bone loss ≤ 13.5% and an on-track Hill Sachs lesion. The average follow-up was 66 (60-93) months for the open group and 68 (60-97) months for the arthroscopic group. The primary functional outcomes of each group were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and for a minimum of 5 years after surgery. The functional outcomes were also compared between the two groups. The assessment tools included the WOSI and ASES scores. In addition, recurrent instability and range of motion were also evaluated. ResultsIn each group, there were significant differences in WOSI and ASES scores between the pre and postoperative periods. There were no differences between the groups at the end of follow-up (P = 0.47 and 0.22). Three dislocations (6.9%) in the open group and 10 dislocations (23.2%) in the arthroscopic group were reported showing significant differences (P = .012). In addition, there were no differences in range of motion between pre and postoperative periods for each group as well as between them. ConclusionWe found no differences in functional outcomes and range of motion between the two groups. The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the arthroscopic group. We recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization with Hill-Sachs Remplissage Can be Employed in Skeletally Immature Patients-Operative Technique.

Numerous studies indicate that glenoid bony augmentation raises the risk of complications during and after surgery. On the other hand, repairing the labrum alone in cases with subcritical glenoid bone loss results in recurrent instability and persistent apprehension. As a result, recent advancements in shoulder instability surgery prioritize fully restoring the anterior shoulder restraint. A novel method for treating recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss and off-track Hill-Sachs lesion in skeletally immature patients is suggested: the use of dynamic anterior stabilization technique incorporating the long head of the biceps tendon onto the anterior glenoid rim via trans-subscapular transfer, in conjunction with Hill-Sachs remplissage. A practical, step-by-step surgical technique for a complete reconstruction of the anterior capsule-labral-ligamentous complex is provided. This involves utilizing a soft-tissue dynamic anterior sling, achieved through the trans-subscapularis transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon at the glenoid level. The procedure concludes with a Hill-Sachs remplissage to further prevent off-track events and alleviate apprehension. Dynamic anterior stabilization is a suitable approach for addressing recurring anterior shoulder instability in skeletally immature patients who have subcritical glenoid bone loss and bipolar bone lesions.

Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Background: The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied. Hypothesis: Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability. Results: In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions. Conclusion: Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.

Remplissage reduced sense of apprehension and increased the rate of return to sports at preinjury level of elite overhead athletes with on-track anterior shoulder instability.

The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic isolated Bankart repair (B) with Bankart repair plus Remplissage (B + R) procedure in contact overhead athletes with on-track anterior shoulder instability. A total of 64 athletes playing basketball, volleyball and handball in elite professional level who underwent arthroscopic isolated Bankart repair (34 patients) or Bankart repair plus Remplissage procedure (30 patients) with the diagnosis of recurrent anterior shoulder instability between 2017 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Radiologically all patients had on-track Hill-Sachs defects and minimal or subcritical glenoid bone loss (< 13.5%). Patients were evaluated using pre- and postoperative pVAS, SANE, ASES, ROWE, WOSI scores and postoperative active ROM assessment. Patients were also asked for the frequency of any subjective apprehension and satisfaction with the surgery in four grades. The mean ages of the groups B and B + R were 26.8 and 26years (SD = 3.22), respectively; the mean follow-up times were 37.8 and 36.2months (SD = 11.19). Compared with the preoperative status, there was a statistically significant improvement of all 5 postoperative outcome scores in both groups (P < 0.001). However, significant difference between the improvement of the groups were only found for the SANE (B: 22.3 ± 4.1, B + R: 26.3 ± 4.3; P = 0.0004), ASES (B: 26.1 ± 2.6, B + R: 30.2 ± 3.6; P < 0.001) and ROWE (B: 42 ± 3.7, B + R: 47.7 ± 2.8; P < 0.001) scores in favor of the group B + R. The loss of internal and external rotation of the adducted arm in group B + R was found to be approximately 5 degrees compared to the group B (P < 0.001). More than 80% of group B + R showed no apprehension in sports activities and almost completely returned to pre-injury athletic level, depicting statistically significant improvement compared to group B athletes (P = 0.002 and 0.036, respectively). 3 patients developed re-dislocation after isolated Bankart repair, whereas no re-dislocation occurred in the B + R group. Adding Remplissage procedure to the Bankart repair provided an advantage in terms of both return to sport at preinjury level and the frequency of apprehension sensation during sports activity. III.

Biomechanical comparison of open Bankart repair vs. conjoint tendon transfer in a 10% anterior glenoid bone loss shoulder instability model

The treatment of shoulder instability in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss poses a difficult problem for surgeons as new evidence supports a higher failure rate when a standard arthroscopic Bankart repair is used. The purpose of this study was to compare a conjoint tendon transfer (soft-tissue Bristow) to an open Bankart repair in a cadaveric instability model of 10% glenoid bone loss. Eight cadaveric shoulders were tested using a custom testing system that allows for a 6-degree-of-freedom positioning of the glenohumeral joint. The rotator cuff muscles were loaded to simulate physiologic muscle conditions. Four conditions were tested: (1) intact, (2) Bankart lesion with 10% bone loss, (3) conjoint tendon transfer, and (4) open Bankart repair. Range of motion, glenohumeral kinematics, and anterior-inferior translation at 60° of external rotation with 20 N, 30 N, and 40 N were measured in the scapular and coronal planes. Glenohumeral joint translational stiffness was calculated as the linear fit of the translational force-displacement curve. Force to anterior-inferior dislocation was also measured in the coronal plane. Repeated measures analysis of variance with a Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. A Bankart lesion with 10% bone loss increased the range of motion in both the scapular (P=.001) and coronal planes (P=.001). The conjoint tendon transfer had a minimal effect on the range of motion (vs. intact P=.019, .002), but the Bankart repair decreased the range of motion to intact (P=.9, .4). There was a significant decrease in glenohumeral joint translational stiffness for the Bankart lesion compared with intact in the coronal plane (P=.021). The conjoint tendon transfer significantly increased stiffness in the scapular plane (P=.034), and the Bankart repair increased stiffness in the coronal plane (P=.037) compared with the Bankart lesion. The conjoint tendon transfer shifted the humeral head posteriorly at 60° and 90° of external rotation in the scapular plane. The Bankart repair shifted the head posteriorly in maximum external rotation in the coronal plane. There was no significant difference in force to dislocation between the Bankart repair (75.8±6.6 N) and the conjoint tendon transfer (66.5±4.4 N) (P=.151). In the setting of subcritical bone loss, both the open Bankart repair and conjoint tendon transfer are biomechanically viable options for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability; further studies are needed to extrapolate these data to the clinical setting.

Increased rates of subjective shoulder instability after Bankart repair with remplissage compared to Latarjet surgery.

Controversy exists as to the ideal management of young active patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, and the Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage are effective surgical options. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent instability and reoperation, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, between Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage surgery patients. The authors hypothesized that there would be no difference in rates of recurrent instability, reoperation, and postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent Latarjet surgery and patients who underwent Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage postoperatively. All patients who underwent primary shoulder stabilization for shoulder instability from 2014 to 2019 were screened. Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients were included if arthroscopic surgery was performed in response to anterior shoulder instability. Recurrent instability, revision, shoulder range of motion, return to sport (RTS), and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Instability, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form scores) were compared between groups. Overall, 43 Latarjet patients (age: 29.8±12.1 years, 36 males 7 females) and 28 Bankart repair with remplissage patients (age: 28.2±8.8 years, 25 males 3 females) were included with a mean follow-up of 3.3±1.9 years. Patients who underwent Latarjet surgery had larger amounts of bone loss (19% vs. 11%, P<.001), a lower rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (47% vs. 82%, P<.001), and more frequently had a history of chronic shoulder dislocations (88% vs. 43%, P<.001) compared to Bankart repair with remplissage patients. Latarjet patients less frequently reported feeling subjective shoulder instability after surgery (21% vs. 50%, P=.022), which was defined as feeling apprehension or experiencing a shoulder subluxation or dislocation event. There were no differences in rates of postoperative dislocation, revision, reoperation, or RTS, as well as patient-reported outcome scores, between groups (all P>.05). Despite differences in osseous defects, Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients had similar rates of clinical, patient-reported, and RTS outcomes at a mean of 3.3 years postoperatively. Latarjet surgery patients may be less likely to experience subjective shoulder instability postoperatively than patients who undergo Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage.

Surgical treatment of shoulder instability in active-duty service members with subcritical glenoid bone loss: Bankart vs. Latarjet.

Subcritical bone loss has been identified as a risk factor for potentially inferior outcomes following typical arthroscopic soft tissue repair. One alternative that has been presented as an option for patients with bone loss is the Latarjet, an ipsilateral coracoid transfer to the anteroinferior glenoid. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability in patients with subcritical bone loss. We hypothesize that the open Latarjet will provide higher patient-reported outcome measure scores and lower rates of dislocation. A retrospective cohort comparison of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability procedures was performed. Inclusion criteria included symptomatic anterior shoulder instability, subcritical glenoid bone loss (13.5%-24%), surgical treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet, and minimum follow-up of 2 years. Outcomes included recurrent instability (defined as postoperative dislocation or subjective subluxation), permanent physical restrictions, Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Forty-seven patients were included, 25 of whom underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair and 23 patients an open Latarjet. The average bone loss was 17.8% and 19.3%, respectively. Overall, 8 patients experienced recurrent instability, 6 in the arthroscopic Bankart group and 2 in the open Latarjet group (P=.162). The average postoperative SANE score for arthroscopic Bankart group was 48% and for the open Latarjet group, 84% (P<.001). The average postoperative WOSI score for the arthroscopic Bankart group was 53.6% and for the open Latarjet group, 67.9% (P=.069). There were significantly more patients placed on permanent physical restrictions in the arthroscopic Bankart repair group (16) compared with open Latarjet (3) (P<.001). In patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss (defined as 13.5%-24%), patients treated with an open Latarjet have insignificantly higher SANE and WOSI scores and lower permanent physical restrictions than patients treated with an arthroscopic Bankart repair. We found no statistically significant difference in recurrent instability rates between the open Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair (P=.162).

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.

Latarjet Procedure to Restore Glenohumeral Stability in a Patient With a Postage Stamp Fracture

The “postage stamp fracture” is an anterior glenoid rim fracture following arthroscopic repair of a Bankart lesion. Often occurring at the time of an acute trauma, a fracture line propagates though the previous Bankart repair anchor sites, resulting in recurrent anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. The resultant glenoid rim fracture edge gives a similar appearance as the edge of a stamp, with the osseous edge having the classic “perforation” pattern. When patients present with a postage stamp fracture, even in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss, we believe that additional soft-tissue stabilization procedures and/or fracture fixation pose a significant risk of failure. In our opinion, a Latarjet procedure is recommended in a majority of patients with a postage stamp fracture for restoration of glenohumeral stability. The procedure offers a reliable, reproducible surgical intervention that controls for many of the factors that can make arthroscopic revision unreliable, such as poor bone quality, adhesions, labral degeneration, and bone loss. Here, we outline our preferred surgical technique to restore glenohumeral stability using the Latarjet procedure for a patient with a postage stamp fracture.

Arthroscopic Autologous Scapular Spine Bone Graft for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation With Subcritical (10%-15%) Glenoid Bone Loss

For anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (10%-15%), there is no consensus on the optimal treatment. Now, we describe the technique of using autogenous scapular spine bone graft for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation. This procedure can effectively increase the anterior bone barrier and strengthen the effect of Bankart repair. In addition, this procedure not only avoids coracoid or iliac crest transfer, but also adopts nonrigid fixation, which makes it safer and more convenient. We believe that this technique will provide a promising alternative to the surgical treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in subcritical glenoid bone loss (10%-15%).

Poster 167: Biomechanics of a Novel Dermal Augmentation Procedure for Subcritical Bone Loss

Objectives:Subcritical glenoid bone loss has been associated with high failure rates when treated with standard labral repair. While a Latarjet can provide stability, high complication rates and the risk of long term arthritis makes this procedure less then ideal when bone loss is under 20%. The purpose of the current study was to demonstrate biomechanical results of a new arthroscopic procedure using dermal allograft augmentation of subcritical bone loss when compared to a standard labral repair for subcritical bone loss.Methods:Six cadaveric specimens were prepared sequentially to simulate four clinical scenarios (Figure 1): 1) an intact shoulder; 2) a 15% bony glenoid defect; 3) 15% defect repaired using a 3-anchor labral; and 4) Dermal Allograft augmentation of the bony defect. The glenoid was potted on a ball-bearing base allowing horizontal degrees of freedom, with 50N weights applied to simulate intra-articular compression. The humerus was potted and placed in an Instron at 45 degrees of abduction, allowing anterior translation to dislocation. Translation (mm) and force (N) to dislocation were measured, using ANOVA for statistical analysis.Results:Dermal augmentation of the 15% defect resulted in a significantly higher force to dislocation (20.53+/-7.76N) when compared to the defect group (14.75+/-4.99N, p=0.002) or the labral repair (13.94+/-4.13N, p=0.007). There was no difference between the force to dislocation between the defect and labral repair groups (p=1.0). The intact shoulder translated 8.37+/-1.06mm prior to dislocation. This was significantly higher than both the defect (5.23 +/- 0.65mm, p<0.001) or the labral repair (6.55+/-0.97mm, p=0.048). The dermal augmentation resulted in no significant difference in anterior translation to dislocation (8.92 +/- 4.13mm, p=1.0).Conclusions:While labral repair is often used in patients with subcritical bone loss, clinical failure rates are high, ranging from 25-100%. Results of the current study indicate that a standard labral repair does not restore the force to dislocation when used in a 15% defect. On the contrary, it may lead to tightening of the shoulder in a non-anatomic position, resulting in the repair being “tested” at earlier range of motions. This may cause the repair to stretch during every day range of motion. Dermal augmentation of the glenoid defect can restore the normal anterior translation of the shoulder, while also increasing the force to dislocation when compared to a standard repair.

Clinical outcomes following open anterior shoulder stabilization for glenohumeral instability in the young collision athlete.

Anterior glenohumeral instability occurs most commonly in those aged 15-29, with 72% of individuals younger than 22 years suffering recurrent episodes; collision athletes are at particular risk. In the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss, arthroscopic Bankart repair is widely used despite concerns of recurrent dislocations when compared with open techniques. Furthermore, indications for bone-block procedures are evolving with the Latarjet procedure being favored amongst recent authors as a primary stabilization method in elite and contact athletes. To determine the efficacy of open modified Bankart stabilization in treating anterior glenohumeral instability in young collision athletes. This was a retrospective review of outcomes of consecutive patients aged 15-20 years who underwent unilateral or bilateral open stabilization for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability over a 7-year period (2007-2015). The cohort was selected as recent literature suggests that this is the group with the highest redislocation rate and poorest outcomes. Outcome assessments included redislocation rate, return to sport, pain score, patient-related satisfaction scores, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. A total of 60 patients (55 male: 5 female) of mean age 18 years (range: 15-20 years) were available for follow-up at 7 years. All but 3 were competitive athletes with 18 competing regionally and 9 internationally; rugby union and rugby league represent the most common sports. Fifty-five of 60 (92%) have returned to their desired level of sport with 62% of athletes returning to their previous level of competition sport and 1 retuning at a higher level. The mean postoperative pain score was 2.5/10. The mean time to return to play was 14 months (range: 5-48 months). Eight of 60 shoulders reported redislocation (13%), 7 of these being traumatic dislocations after return to high-impact sporting activities. At 7 years of follow-up, 4 of 60 shoulders (7%) had undergone revision surgery. Young collision athletes represent a challenging cohort of instability patients. This study of open modified Bankart in young collision sport athletes revealed excellent outcomes with 92% return to sport and a low revision rate. The results from this cohort rival those of arthroscopic repair. The open procedure described here in this 7-year series represents a robust, reliable technique that could be considered as an alternative to arthroscopic Bankart due to concern for recurrence, while avoiding potential morbidity and complication of bone-block procedures. There is still a role for the open modified Bankart procedure in treating traumatic anterior instability.

Poster 131: Open Bankart versus arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage for anterior glenohumeral instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss

Objectives:The optimal surgical technique for the management of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL) with or without engaging Hill Sachs (HS) lesion is unknown. Open Bankart and arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage have been proposed as potential treatments however no comparative studies exists. The goal of this study was to define failure rates and associated risk factors for patients with subcritical GBL undergoing either open Bankart or arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage.Methods:A consecutive series of arthroscopic Bankart stabilizations with remplissage or open Bankart repairs were performed by sports-medicine certified and fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons from 2010-2019 . Minimum follow up was 2 years, and shoulders with glenoid bone loss <3% or >25%, multidirectional instability or hyperlaxity were excluded. Shoulders were additionally excluded if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was not available at the time of preoperative evaluation or the patient was lost to follow-up. All shoulders were evaluated for glenohumeral bone loss using the perfect circle technique on the sagittal en-face MRI as well as for bipolar lesions according to the on/off-track method of Diagacomo et al. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent instability (subluxation or dislocation) and revision stabilization. A power analysis was conducted based on a projected failure rate of 10%, alpha 0.05, and power of 80% which determined that 28 patients would be needed per group to detect a 4-fold difference in failure rate. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the relationships of outcomes with surgical technique, primary vs revision surgery, and track.Results:Thirty-one patients (31) with open Bankart and twenty eight (28) patients with arthroscopic Bankart and remplissage met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 25.9 years old (18-46) and mean follow-up 4.7 years. There was no difference in baseline age (remplissage 27.8 years, open Bankart 24.5 years), glenoid bone loss (remplissage 13.8%, open Bankart 11.1%), off-track HS (remplissage 13, open Bankart 17) or primary versus revision surgery (primary remplissage 18/28, primary open Bankart 14/31) between cohorts. The failure rate in the open Bankart cohort was 6.5% (2/31) with 2 dislocations, multiple subluxations, resulting in 2 revisions. The failure rate of the arthroscopic Bankart remplissage cohort was 7.1% (2/28), 2 dislocations, multiple subluxations, resulting in 2 revisions. Multivariate regression analysis did not identify age, gender, procedure, GBL, index vs revision surgery, or on/off track as predictors of failure. Subgroup analysis of patients with on- vs off-track HS lesions as well as primary vs revision surgery showed no difference in patient baseline characteristics including GBL, and no difference in failure rates between patients with open Bankart and remplissage.Conclusions:Bankart and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage are both effective at treating anterior instability with subcritical GBL. No differences in failures or complications was observed between our arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage and open Bankart cohorts.

Consideration May Be Given to Lowering the Threshold for the Addition of Remplissage in Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

PurposeTreatment for patients with anterior glenohumeral instability with subcritical bone loss is evolving. The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without Hill–Sachs remplissage in patients with <15% glenoid bone loss.MethodsA multicenter retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (IBR) or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) by 4 shoulder specialists between 2013 and 2019. Range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and 2 years postoperative: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, complications, and revisions also were reviewed.ResultsA total of 123 patients were available, including 75 IBR and 48 REMP. Baseline demographics, activity, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean glenoid bone loss (2.5% vs 6.1%: P < .001) was greater in REMP, although the number of on-track lesions was similar (98.7% vs 93.8%: P = .298). WOSI scores were improved for REMP (196.5 vs 42.7: P = .004), but otherwise no difference in postoperative PROs or ROM. Differences between cohorts did not reach significance in return to sport (73% vs 83%: P = .203), recurrence (9.3% vs 2.1%: P = .148), or revisions (6.8% vs 2.1%: P = .403). For on-track lesions there were 6 recurrences in IBR (6 of 74; 8.1%) and 1 recurrence in REMP (1 of 45; 2.2%).ConclusionsDespite slightly worse pathology, patients with subcritical bone loss who undergo REMP experience similar short-term postoperative function to isolated IBR. Recurrence, revision, and return to sport favored REMP but this study was underpowered to show statistical significance. Recurrence was common following IBR, despite subcritical glenoid bone loss and primarily on-track lesions, suggesting that REMP can be considered in on-track lesions.Level of EvidenceIII, retrospective comparative study.

Long head of biceps transfer to augment Bankart repair in chronic anterior shoulder instability with and without subcritical bone loss: a biomechanical study.

Treating recurrent anterior shoulder instability in participants in collision sports, patients with capsulolabral defects, and patients with bipolar bone loss remains challenging. The study purpose was to investigate the effect of long head of the biceps transfer (LHBT) on load-to-dislocation biomechanics in a repetitive serial shoulder dislocation cadaveric model comparing LHBT with the Latarjet and Bankart procedures-the first-line treatment methods for chronic traumatic anterior shoulder instability with and without anterior glenoid bone loss, respectively. In this controlled laboratory study, 8 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders with different conditions were dislocated in sequence using a custom test frame. The muscle loading configuration simulated the arm in the apprehension position, and biceps loads of 20 N and 40 N were used for the static glenohumeral position analysis to evaluate the sling effect. Sequential experimental conditions consisted of the intact state, second and third dislocations, chronic instability, Bankart repair, first LHBT, subcritical glenoid bone loss, second LHBT, and Latarjet procedure. The pectoralis major and joint reaction loads to dislocation sequentially decreased with serial dislocations in all specimens, with the lowest value in the subcritical glenoid bone defect condition. In the setting of chronic instability, the pectoralis load to dislocation was significantly higher with the Bankart repair (P = .031) and LHBT (P < .001), at 71% and 85% of the intact value, respectively. Direct comparison of the pectoralis load to dislocation favored LHBT over Bankart repair (P = .015). In the subcritical defect scenario, LHBT did not significantly increase the load to dislocate, and the Latarjet procedure demonstrated a higher load to dislocate than LHBT (P < .001). All 3 surgical procedures tested significantly increased the angle of horizontal abduction at the time of dislocation and restored the glenohumeral position to closer to the intact state. Doubling the biceps load leveraged the sling effect, pulling the humeral head farther posterior-superiorly, but this was not enough to overcome the effect of a 20% subcritical glenoid bone defect. In a serial dislocation model, LHBT effectively stabilized the glenohumeral joint in a simulated chronic instability scenario, increasing the pectoralis major load-to-dislocate and glenohumeral joint reaction force components at the time of dislocation and restoring relative glenohumeral positioning to close to the intact state. The Latarjet procedure outperformed LHBT in stabilizing shoulders in the 20% subcritical glenoid bone defect condition.

Bony Apprehension Test for Identifying Bone Loss in Patients With Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Validation Study

Background: The presence of bone loss has important implications for the surgical treatment of patients with recurrent shoulder instability. The bony apprehension test (BAT) is a physical examination maneuver that was designed to improve specificity from the anterior apprehension test (AAT) in detecting critical bone loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the BAT with the AAT and relocation test based on their abilities to predict critical bone loss. Several well–described criteria were utilized to capture critical (≥25%) and subcritical (≥13.5%) glenoid defects, as well as Hill-Sachs defects (≥19%). The ability of the BAT to predict bipolar bone loss was also assessed, as indicated by engaging Hill-Sachs defects and off–track lesions. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The study cohort included patients ≥18 years of age who were scheduled to undergo arthroscopic stabilization for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Notable exclusion criteria included multidirectional shoulder instability, connective tissue disorders, and workers’ compensation or litigation cases. Patients underwent physical examination immediately before surgery by the treating surgeon (ie, before the induction of anesthesia). Critical glenoid and humeral bone defects were measured on preoperative computed tomography scans. Hill-Sachs engagement and on- or off–track determination of bone loss were assessed arthroscopically and via computed tomography, respectively. Results: A total of 52 patients were included in the study. In cases of subcritical glenoid bone loss (≥13.5%) and critical Hill-Sachs defects (≥19%), the BAT had good and fair specificity (82% and 72%, respectively) but poor sensitivity (40% and 39%). The BAT also had poor sensitivity (0%), specificity (67%), and positive predictive value (0%) for higher percentages of glenoid bone loss (≥25%). When engaging Hill-Sachs lesions were assessed, the BAT had excellent specificity (94%) and positive predictive value (94%) but poor sensitivity (43%) and negative predictive value (44%). Furthermore, the BAT performed poorly at predicting off–track humeral lesions. The AAT demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity in detecting all measures of bone loss. Conclusion: The BAT performed poorly at identifying subcritical and critical bone loss and was not found to have any clinical value. Future work is needed to identify a physical examination test that could complement advanced imaging for preoperative assessment of critical bone loss.

A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Bankart repair and remplissage with the Latarjet procedure in patients with subcritical bone loss (STABLE): study protocol

IntroductionAnterior dislocations, the most common type of shoulder dislocation, are often complicated by subsequent instability. With recurrent dislocations there often is attrition of the labrum and progressive loss of the anterior bony contour of the glenoid. Treatment options for this pathology involve either soft tissue repair or bony augmentation procedure. The optimal management remains unknown and current clinical practice is highly varied.Methods and analysisThe Shoulder instability Trial comparing Arthroscopic stabilization Benefits compared with Latarjet procedure Evaluation (STABLE) is an ongoing multi-centre, pilot randomized controlled trial of 82 patients who have been diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and subcritical glenoid bone loss. Patients are randomized to either soft tissue repair (Bankart + Remplissage) or bony augmentation (Latarjet procedure). The primary outcome for this pilot is to assess trial feasibility and secondary outcomes include recurrent instability as well as functional outcomes up to two years post-operatively.ConclusionsThis trial will help to identify the optimal treatment for patients with recurrent shoulder instability with a focus on determining which treatment option results in reduced risk of recurrent dislocation and improved patient outcomes. Findings from this trial will guide clinical practice and improve care for patients with shoulder instability.Trial registrationThis study has been registered on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov with the following identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03585491, registered 13 July 2018, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03585491?term=NCT03585491&draw=2&rank=1.Ethics and disseminationThis study has ethics approval from the McMaster University/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (REB) (approval #4942). Successful completion will significantly impact the global management of patients with recurrent instability. This trial will develop a network of collaboration for future high-quality trials in shoulder instability.

Arthroscopic Biceps Transfer to the Glenoid With Bankart Repair Grants Satisfactory 2-Year Results for Recurrent Anteroinferior Glenohumeral Instability in Subcritical Bone Loss

To evaluate the short-term outcomes of the arthroscopic dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS), which is a transfer of the intra-articular portion of the long head biceps through the subscapularis split and fixation on the anterior glenoid, combined with a Bankart repair. A retrospective evaluation was performed of DAS and a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria were the presence of anteroinferior instability, a positive apprehension test at 90° of abduction and external rotation, and subcritical glenoid bone loss (less than 20%). Exclusion criteria were severe (≥20%) glenoid bone loss, presence of biceps lesions or rupture (spontaneous or biceps tenotomy), pre-existing glenohumeral osteoarthritis, multidirectional or voluntary instability, previous arthroscopic stabilization procedure, and epilepsy. Outcomes included the Rowe score, range of motion (ROM), and recurrence. Twenty-three patients were treated with DAS and arthroscopic Bankart repair during the study period. One person was lost to follow-up, leaving 22 patients available at last follow-up. Those 22 patients had an average age of 31.9 ± 12.3 years (range, 18-68) and were evaluated at an average follow-up of 3.2 ± 0.7 years (range, 1.2-4.2). The Rowe score increased from 36.1 ± 16.2 (range, 10-70) preoperatively to 89.8 ± 20.1 (range, 30-100) postoperatively (P < .001) with almost all patients (90.9%) improving their score beyond the minimal clinically important difference of 9.7 points. Postoperatively, ROM was maintained. Three patients (13.6%) analyzed at final follow-up demonstrated recurrence, one was successfully treated conservatively, but two revised with a Latarjet. No postoperative Popeye deformity, biceps cramping, or other complication were reported. The DAS procedure may be an option for augmentation of a Bankart repair in patients with anterior shoulder instability and subcritical bone loss. ROM is maintained without evidence of postoperative Popeye deformity or biceps cramping. Level IV, retrospective study.

Managing Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability-Techniques and Outcomes: a Scoping Review.

The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the literature published over the past 5 years related to the management of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability. During recent years, there has been a focus on patients at high risk for failure following soft tissue anterior stabilization (Bankart repair). A growing body of evidence suggests that anterior capsulolabral repair is insufficient in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss with an off-track Hill Sachs lesion. In such cases, the addition of a remplissage procedure to a Bankart repair or a bone-block augmentation to the glenoid (Latarjet, for example) is often advocated to decrease the risk of recurrent instability. Recent studies have also evaluated the role of alternative bone-block procedures in comparison to the Latarjet, outcomes with arthroscopic and open techniques as well as various fixation methods and radiological outcomes (bone graft resorption, glenohumeral osteoarthritis). Advances in our understanding of subcritical glenoid bone loss and the glenoid track concept have significantly impacted clinical decision making and treatment selection. The development of arthroscopic techniques has allowed for minimally invasive and safe arthroscopic bone-block procedures as an alternative to open procedures. Further research related to free bone-block procedures will inform long-term outcomes between these procedures and the gold standard Latarjet. Additionally, high-quality evidence is lacking to identify the ideal treatment for patients with glenoid subcritical glenoid bone defect. Variability in outcome reporting suggests the need to standardize outcome measures for future instability trials.

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.