Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success. CONCLUSION: Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Management options for proximal humerus fractures - A systematic review & network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

AIMS: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the randomized controlled trials on the various treatment options that can be utilized in the management of displaced proximal humerus fractures. MATERIALS & METHODS: Based on the PRISMA guidelines, three independent reviewers performed a systematic review of the literature. Randomized control trials (RCTs) focusing on the outcomes of the following interventions in the management of PHFs were considered for inclusion; (1) non-operative or conservative (NOC) management, (2) open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), (3) intra-medullary nailing (IMN), (4) shoulder hemi-arthroplasty (HA), and (5) reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Network meta-analyses were performed using R and studies were ranked according to their P-score. RESULTS: Our study included 13 RCTs. RSA had improvements in abduction, constant score, flexion, as well as lowest rates of malunion and osteonecrosis when compared to other management modalities (P-Score = 0.9786, P-Score = 0.9998, P-Score = 0.9909, P-Score = 0.9590 and P-Score = 0.8042 respectively). HA was found to have improvements in health-related quality of life scores when compared to other management modalities (P-Score = 0.9672). ORIF had the highest improvement in quick disability of arm, shoulder and hand scores and visual analogue scale scores (P-Score = 0.8209 and P-Score = 0.7155 respectively). NOC was found to have the lowest rate of conversion to surgical intervention, with RSA having the lowest rate of surgical interventions (P-Score = 0.9186 and P-Score = 0.7497 respectively). DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: RSA offers satisfactory improvements in clinical and functional outcomes when compared to other non-operative and operative treatment options in the management of carefully selected proximal humerus fractures, with a minimal revision rate when compared to other surgical management modalities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I - Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.