Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage in Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in Fewer Redislocations Than Bankart Repair Alone at Medium-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: A multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) to Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) reported benefits of remplissage in reducing recurrent instability at 2 years postoperative. The ongoing benefits beyond this time point are yet to be explored. PURPOSE: To (1) compare medium-term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of these previously randomized patients undergoing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) to manage recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability; (2) examine the failure rate, overall recurrent instability, and reoperation rate. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Recruitment and randomization for the original randomized trial occurred between 2011 and 2017. Patients ≥14 years diagnosed with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with an engaging Hill-Sachs defect of any size were included. Those with a glenoid defect >15% were excluded. In 2020, participants were contacted by telephone and asked standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation, or reoperation on their study shoulder. "Failure" was defined as a redislocation, and "overall recurrent instability" was described as a redislocation or ≥2 subluxations. Descriptive statistics, relative risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 108 participants were randomized, of whom 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to the final follow-up was 49.3 and 53.8 months for the NO REMP and REMP groups, respectively. Failure rates were 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP group versus 8% (4/52) in the REMP group. Rates of overall recurrent instability were 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group versus 10% (5/52) in the REMP group. Survival curves were significantly different, favoring REMP in both scenarios. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative recurrent instability was observed with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage than with isolated Bankart repair at a medium-term follow-up (mean of 4 years). Patients who did not receive a remplissage experienced a failure (redislocated) earlier and had a higher rate of revision/reoperation than those who received a concomitant remplissage. REGISTRATION: NCT01324531 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise. METHODS: This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability. RESULTS: The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%. CONCLUSION: ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Modified double-pulley fixation provides better reduction of bone fragments and union compared to single-point fixation in bony Bankart lesions.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical scores and imaging outcomes of bony Bankart lesions that underwent single-point and modified double-pulley fixation after at least 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery to treat bony Bankart injuries were included and divided into groups A and B. A total of 69 patients were included (32 in group A and 37 in group B). Patients in group A underwent arthroscopic modified double-pulley fixation and patients in group B underwent arthroscopic single-point fixation. Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) was used to assess glenoid reduction one day after surgery. Postoperative bony union was assessed using 3D-CT and multiplanar reconstruction images 6 months after surgery. Constant-Murley, Rowe rating system, visual analogue scale and University of California at Los Angeles and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were recorded before and after surgery. RESULTS: In terms of imaging measurements, there was no significant group difference in the preoperative size of the glenoid defect, the size of the bony fragment or the expected postoperative size of the glenoid defect. The sizes of the actual postoperative glenoid defects differed significantly between the groups (p = 0.027), as did the absolute difference between the expected and actual glenoid defect sizes (p < 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, 50.0% of group A patients and 24.3% of group B patients exhibited complete bony union (p = 0.027); the rates of partial union were 37.5% and 56.8%, respectively. At the final follow-up, all clinical scores were significantly better than the preoperative scores (all p < 0.05), with no significant group differences (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the modified double-pulley technique with two anchors to treat bony Bankart injuries provides a better reduction of bone fragments than single-point fixation with two anchors and was associated with a higher rate of early bone union. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Bony Bankart Lesion: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes.

¼ Bony Bankart lesions are fractures of the anteroinferior glenoid rim, commonly associated with a traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation, and are diagnosed through radiological imaging and physical examination. Young male athletes playing contact sports are at highest risk of these injuries. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial because, if left untreated, recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss can occur. Both nonsurgical and surgical treatment options are available depending on the size of the lesion, with arthroscopic repair being the most common treatment method. After repair, patients typically have favorable outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability. This review aims to discuss the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of bony Bankart lesions.¼ Bony Bankart lesions are fractures of the anteroinferior glenoid rim and occur in up to 22% of first-time anterior shoulder dislocations.¼ Young men involved in contact sports or combat training are at the highest risk of sustaining bony Bankart lesions.¼ Diagnosis and treatment of bony Bankart lesions are essential to prevent long-term shoulder instability.¼ Bony Bankart lesions can be treated either nonoperatively or operatively (arthroscopic vs open repair), with the size of the glenoid defect being the primary determinant of treatment.

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.

Comparison of Return to Sports and Competition After the Arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents With Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: The use of isolated soft tissue repair versus bone block stabilization for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in adolescents has no scientific evidence. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of adolescent patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic Bankart (iB) repair with those who underwent the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure in addition to Bankart (BLB) repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 60 shoulders in adolescents (aged 13-18 years) were reviewed with a minimum 2 years' follow-up: iB repair (n = 36) and arthroscopic Bankart repair with an additional Bristow-Latarjet procedure (BLB; n = 24). The characteristics of the patients in each group in terms of age at the first instability episode, age at surgery, hyperlaxity, participation in at-risk sports, and Instability Severity Index Score were comparable. The mean follow-up was longer in the iB group (7.7 vs 4.1 years, respectively), whereas the rates of patients engaged in competition and those with glenoid lesions were higher in the BLB group. The primary outcome measures were failure, defined as the recurrence of instability (clinical dislocation or subluxation), and return to sports. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (range, 2-16 years). RESULTS: At the last follow-up, the rate of recurrence was significantly higher in the iB group, with 22% (8/36) failures, than in the BLB group, with 8% (2/24) instability recurrences (P < .05). The rate of return to sports at the same level was significantly higher after the BLB repair than after iB repair (79% vs 47%, respectively; P < .001). No statistical difference was found in patient-reported outcome scores between treatment groups (P > .05). Although failures occurred early after the BLB repair, 88% of failures after iB repair occurred after 2 years. On multivariate analysis, adolescents in the iB group with >3 episodes of preoperative dislocation and shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) had a 60% recurrence rate (P < .005). CONCLUSION: Adolescent patients undergoing the BLB repair had a lower rate of recurrent instability and higher rates of return to sports and competition than those undergoing iB repair. Patients with shoulder hyperlaxity (external rotation >90°) and >3 dislocations had an unacceptable failure rate of 60% after iB repair.

Editorial Commentary: For Patients With Shoulder Instability, On-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion Plus Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss May Be the Best Indication for Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon.

As the definition of shoulder glenoid critical bone loss has evolved and decreased from 25% to 17% to 13.5%, indications for bone block procedures for shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss have expanded. While the bone block procedure is an effective treatment for almost all cases of anterior shoulder instability, regardless of the amount of bone loss, many surgeons prefer to perform a bone block procedure only in cases of critical bone loss due to risk of complications. Thus, for cases of minimal (subcritical) bone loss, Remplissage has been recommended to enhance Bankart repair. As an alternative, dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of the biceps tendon has been recommended as a surgical option in patients with shoulder instability and subcritical bone loss. How do we decide? A biomechanical study shows DAS is an effective method for on-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical bone loss, and Remplissage is more effective for off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Clinical studies are required to complement biomechanical findings.

Higher return to sport and lower revision rates when performing arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage for anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent anterior shoulder instability remains the most common complication from a prior shoulder dislocation, especially among young and active individuals who engage in athletic activities. This instability can lead to repeated subluxation or dislocations of the humeral head from the glenoid fossa. The purpose of this study is to compare postoperative recurrence rates, instability-related revision and return to sport (RTS) rates between isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and ABR with remplissage (ABR + R) for anterior shoulder instability with subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL) and a Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched on June 2022. Studies sought were those comparing postoperative outcomes of ABR + R versus isolated ABR for subcritical GBL and an HSL. Study quality was evaluated using the revised Cochrane tool. Redislocations, instability-related revisions, and RTS rates were extracted and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included with a mean follow-up of 48.2 months for isolated ABR and 43.2 months for ABR + R. The meta-analytic comparison demonstrated that ABR + R resulted in statistically significant improvement in Rowe and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores by 6.5 and 2.2 points, respectively; however, the improvements in patient-reported outcomes were not clinically meaningful. ABR + R resulted in reduced external rotation at the side by 1° which was not clinically meaningful and there was no significant difference in terms of forward elevation. ABR + R resulted in a statistically significant reduction of overall postoperative recurrences (odds ratio [OR]: 9.36), postoperative dislocations (OR: 6.28), instability-related revision (OR: 3.46), and RTS to any level (OR: 2.85). CONCLUSION: The addition of remplissage to ABR for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical GBL and HSL results in significantly lower postoperative instability recurrence, lower instability-related revisions, and higher RTS to any level.

The New Double-row Bankart Repair Recovered Shoulder Stability without Excessive Motion Limitation: A Case-Control Study with Single-row Bankart Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Bankart lesion is one of the most common lesions of the glenohumeral joint. Several double-row suture methods were reported for Bankart repair, which could provide more stability, yet more motion limitation and complications. Therefore, we introduced a new double-row Bankart repair technique, key point double-row suture which used one anchor in the medial line. The purpose of this article is to investigate the clinical outcomes of this new method and to compare it with single-row suture. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients receiving key point double-row suture or single-row suture from October 2010 to June 2014 were collected retrospectively. The basic information including gender, age, dominant arm, and number of episodes of instability was collected. Before surgery, the glenoid bone loss was measured from the CT scan. The visual analogue scale, American shoulder and elbow surgeons, the University of California at Los Angeles shoulder scale, and subjective shoulder value were valued before surgery and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (24 patients receiving single-row suture and 20 patients receiving key point double-row suture) were followed up successfully. The follow-up period was 9.2 ± 1.1 years (range, 7.8-11.4 years). At the last follow-up, no significant differences were detected for any of the clinical scores. The recurrence rate was 12.5% for the single-row group and 10% for the double-row group, respectively (p = 0.795) 14 patients (31.8%) in the single-row group and nine patients (26.5%) in the double-row group were tested for active range of motion. A statistically significant difference was found only for the internal rotation at 90° abduction (48.9° for single-row and 76.7° for key point double-row, p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The key point double-row sutures for Bankart lesions could achieve similar long-term outcomes compared with single-row suture, and one medial anchor did not result in a limited range of motion. The low recurrence rate and previous biomechanical results also indicate the key point double-row suture is a reliable method.

Biomechanical Analysis Reveals Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss Is Best Treated With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization for On-Track Lesions and With Remplissage for Off-Track Lesions.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical effects of augmenting Bankart repair (BR) with either remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with on-track or off-track bipolar bone loss. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the intact, injury, and repair conditions. Injury conditions included 15% glenoid bone loss with an on-track or off-track Hill-Sachs lesion as previously recommended. Repair conditions included isolated BR, BR with remplissage, and BR with DAS (long head of biceps transfer). The glenohumeral stability was assessed by measuring the anterior translation under 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 N load and maximum load without causing instability at mid-range (60°) and end-range (90°) external rotation (ER). Maximum range of motion (ROM) was measured by applying a 2.2-N·m torque in passive ER and internal rotation. RESULTS: Isolated BR failed to restore native glenohumeral stability in both on-track and off-track bipolar bone loss models. Both remplissage and DAS significantly decreased the anterior instability in the bipolar bone loss models, showing better restoration than the isolated BR. In the on-track lesions, DAS successfully restored native glenohumeral stability and mobility, whereas remplissage significantly decreased anterior translation without load (-2.12 ± 1.07 mm at 90° ER, P = .003; -1.98 ± 1.23 mm at 60° ER, P = .015). In the off-track lesions, remplissage restored native glenohumeral stability but led to significant ROM limitation (-8.6° ± 2.3° for internal rotation, P < .001; -13.9° ± 6.2° for ER, P = .003), whereas DAS failed to restore native stability at 90° ER regarding the increased anterior translation under 50 N (4.10 ± 1.53 mm, P < .001) and decreased maximum load (-13.8 ± 9.2 N, P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: At time-zero, both remplissage and DAS significantly reduced residual anterior instability compared with isolated BR in the bipolar bone loss models and restored the native glenohumeral stability under most translational loads. However, remplissage could decrease the anterior translation without load for on-track lesions and may restrict ROM for off-track lesions, whereas DAS failed to restore native stability under high translational loads for off-track lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DAS could be recommended to treat on-track bipolar bone loss with less biomechanical adverse effects, whereas remplissage might be the preferred procedure to address off-track bipolar bone loss for better stability.

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

BACKGROUND: The glenoid track concept has enabled the categorization of Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) into on-track lesions and off-track lesions. Furthermore, among the on-track lesions, further categorization has been established based on the distance from the medial edge of the Hill-Sachs lesion to the medial edge of the glenoid track, into peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions. Recent studies on peripheral-track lesions and central-track lesions within the glenoid track have shown inconsistencies in failure rates, which deserves further investigation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort comparison of patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2015 and 2020 was performed. 102 patients with peripheral-track HSLs were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the results of the postoperative apprehension test: the apprehension positive group (n = 30), and the apprehension negative group (n = 72). Using preoperative computed tomography (CT) and an image reconstruction program, 3-dimensional (3D) images were segmented to calculate the length, width, depth, and distance of the HSLs. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the risk factors of recurrence, for which odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. RESULTS: A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the length of the peripheral-track HSLs was a significant independent predictor of failure in this study. (OR 1.380; 95% CI 1.170-1.627; P < .001). The receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) demonstrated a predictive power (area under the curve = 0.841) and a threshold value of 14.2 mm. CONCLUSION: Length was the only risk factor for the recurrent instability of peripheral-track HSLs after ABR. In the context of surgical decision-making, utilizing the glenoid track concept, medical practitioners may need to evaluate instability by considering the length as a continuous factor, while differentiating between peripheral-track and central-track classifications.

Editorial Commentary: Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Combining Arthroscopic Bankart and Inferior Capsular Shift Avoids Open Surgery in Athletes Without Critical Glenoid Bone Loss.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations can cause a myriad of injuries, each with their own unique set of challenges with respect to surgical management. The debate of whether open or arthroscopic management is the superior approach is one that predates most currently practicing orthopaedic surgeons yet remains one of the most actively researched areas of orthopaedics. Current trends favor arthroscopic management for anterior instability secondary to a Bankart lesion in patients without other risk factors for instability, such as critical glenoid bone loss. However, excellent results are not guaranteed following arthroscopic Bankart repair, particularly in athletes, due to high rates of recurrence. While the technique of inferior to superior capsular shift is not new, transitioning a historically open technique to the arthroscopic world may represent another tool in the glenohumeral instability management toolbox. While perspectives are evolving, more evidence supporting arthroscopic techniques like the capsular shift are needed to better identify appropriate patient populations.

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.

Infraspinatus function impairment after arthroscopic Bankart repair with Hill Sachs remplissage. Isokinetic, functional, and radiographic analysis.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with Hill Sachs remplissage (BHSR) is an option for anterior shoulder instability with humeral defect. Our hypothesis was that infraspinatus capsulo-tenodesis is an effective solution, with good clinical results and no consequences on shoulder strength and ranges of motion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study involving 22 patients operated with arthroscopic BHSR. We compared isokinetic evaluation of both shoulders using a dynanometer in concentric, eccentric force and endurance. Ranges of motion were measured using a goniometer and compared to the contralateral unaffected side. Functional assessment included Constant, Rowe, Walch and Duplay and WOSI scores. Healing and fatty degeneration were analyzed with magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: At mean 37.2 months follow-up, 21 patients (95.4%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the intervention. Range of motion in external rotation of the affected side decreased by 10.8° in adduction and 6° at 90° of abduction (p<0.05). Deficit in external rotation strength of the affected side greater than 15% was found in all isokinetic tests (p<0.05). Walch and Duplay, Rowe, WOSI and adjusted Constant average scores were respectively 71.05±14.1 (40-90), 67.63±19.7 (15-100), 34.6%±19.9 (8.43-76.23) and 69.8±13.57 (36.7-101). Postoperative MRI showed good capsulo-tenodesis healing without infraspinatus muscle fatty degeneration. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic BHSR provides satisfactory functional outcomes but significant infraspinatus functional impairments in both strength and ranges of motion in external rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case-control study.

Studies on Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability Show Poor Reporting of Data and Reflect Low Level of Evidence: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results were analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100 and gave each study a score out of 25 based on the Anterior Shoulder Instability (ASI) Methodology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six studies were included in the analysis and encompassed a total of 19,156 patients and 19,317 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. Overall, 81.6% of studies were Level III or IV evidence. The mean CMS score for the studies was 55.3 out of 100, and the mean ASI Methodology score for the studies was 12.1 out of 25. Weaknesses in the studies were identified in sample size, description of preoperative investigations and diagnoses, reporting of mean glenoid bone loss, nonsubjective clinical outcome reporting, and description of associated pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of studies reporting the clinical outcomes of Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability are of low methodological quality and have a low level of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study emphasizes need for greater reporting of many variables such as body mass index, mean glenoid bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes and provides a framework for future studies reporting.

Humeral Head Reconstruction of Reverse Hill-Sachs Lesions.

Compared with anterior instability, posterior shoulder dislocations are a rare entity and are often missed at presentation. A concomitant anteromedial impression fracture of the humeral head, or a reverse Hill-Sachs lesion, is commonly present with these dislocations and is more pronounced with a longer timeline to reduction. Treatment of these defects ranges from nonsurgical treatment to soft-tissue procedures, bony reconstruction, and arthroplasty. Management may be dictated by various factors, such as patient demands, defect size and location, concomitant injuries, and underlying etiology. Small reverse Hill-Sachs defects without engagement can generally be treated nonsurgically or with benign neglect, whereas larger defects (>20%) often require surgery. The most reported surgical techniques are the (arthroscopic) McLaughlin and modified McLaughlin procedure, disimpaction and bone grafting, or reconstruction of the defect with autograft or with fresh (or fresh-frozen) osteochondral allograft. Finally, arthroplasty is generally required for large defects, where more than 45% to 50% of the articular cartilage is involved. Overall, reported outcomes generally reflect patient satisfaction for most patients, with a low incidence of secondary instability or posttraumatic arthritis, although better results are achieved when recognizing and treating these injuries in the more acute setting.

Correlation of Glenoid Concavity With Surgical Failure After Arthroscopic Stabilization for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid concavity compression by rotator cuff muscle contraction is one of the key mechanisms in the stability of the glenohumeral joint. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of glenoid concavity, as represented by the bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) and other factors, including glenoid bone defect size, on the surgical failure of arthroscopic stabilization procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The authors also aimed to determine the critical value of BSSR. It was hypothesized that both glenoid concavity and glenoid bone defect size would be correlated with surgical failure, with glenoid concavity having a stronger correlation. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 120 patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability were included. Patients with bony Bankart lesions were excluded to eliminate the postoperative effects of bony fragment restoration on the glenoid concavity. For each patient, variable factors including BSSR, glenoid bone defect size, presence of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, and age at first dislocation were recorded. Chi-square analysis and Student t test were performed to analyze the effect of each variable on surgical failure. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the combined effect of >2 variables on surgical failure. The critical value of BSSR was analyzed using a receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Nine patients (7.5%) had recurrent instability requiring revision surgery. BSSR (patients with recurrence, 18.6% ± 19.4%; patients without recurrence, 41.8% ± 10.5%; P = .01), glenoid bone defect size (17.5% ± 3.6% vs 11.7% ± 7.0%; P = .02), age at the time of first dislocation (18.8 ± 3.9 years vs 22.0 ± 6.5 years; P = .04), and number of suture anchors used (4.1 ± 0.3 vs 5.8 ± 1.6; P < .001) showed significant differences between patients with and without surgical failure. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed surgical failure to be correlated with BSSR (odds ratio, 0.849; P = .02) and the number of suture anchors used (odds ratio, 0.070; P = .03). The critical value of BSSR was 29.3% (area under the curve, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00; P < .001; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 93%). CONCLUSION: Glenoid concavity is strongly correlated with surgical failure after arthroscopic stabilization procedures for anterior shoulder instability. The value of BSSR reflects shoulder instability caused by glenoid bone morphology more accurately than glenoid bone defect size.

[Anterior shoulder instability with Hill-Sachs on-track. Bankart or Bankart-remplissage?] / Inestabilidad anterior de hombro con lesión de Hill-Sachs on-track. ¿Bankart o Bankart-remplissage?

INTRODUCTION: in patients with anterior glenohumeral (GH) instability together with an off-track or engaging Hill-Sachs (HS) defect, Bankart-remplissage (B-R) surgery reduces the recurrence rate when compared to Bankart (B) surgery alone. There is controversy regarding whether the recurrence rate also decreases in patients with on-track or non-engaging Hill-Sachs defects. OBJECTIVE: to compare the recurrence rate and clinical evolution of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability with 'on-track' Hill-Sachs defect treated with either B or B-R surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: non-randomized, retrospective, single-center cohort study of patients with anterior glenohumeral instability and on-track Hill-Sachs defect, operated between January 2010 and December 2018. Patients operated with B versus B-R were compared. Recurrence, complications and re-operation were recorded. In addition, VAS, SSV, WOSI and qDASH scores were obtained and compared in both groups. RESULTS: of the 105 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 78 (74.3%) patients had a complete follow-up (52 B and 26 B-R, 4.3 years median follow-up). There was a higher recurrence rate in group B compared to B-R, with this difference not reaching statistical significance (17.3% vs 7.7%, p = 0.21). There were no significant differences in residual pain, feeling of instability, complications or VAS, qDASH, SSV or WOSI scores between both groups. In the subgroup analysis, patients who practiced contact sports and were operated with B showed higher recurrence rates (24.1% vs 0%, p = 0.08) and complications (41.4% vs 18.2%, p = 0.16) when compared to B + R, although these differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: there were no significant differences in recurrence rates and functional evolution between patients with anterior glenohumeral instability operated with B or B-R surgery. Comparative, prospective studies should be performed to establish definitive recommendations.

INTRODUCCIÓN: en pacientes con inestabilidad glenohumeral (GH) anterior con defecto de Hill-Sachs (HS) off-track o enganchante, Bankart-remplissage (B + R) reduce tasa de recurrencia en comparación a Bankart aislado (B). Hay controversia si tasa de recurrencia también disminuye en pacientes con defecto de HS on-track o no enganchantes. OBJETIVO: comparar la tasa de recurrencia y evolución clínica entre la cirugía de B versus B-R en pacientes operados por inestabilidad glenohumeral anterior con defecto de Hill-Sachs on-track. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: estudio de cohorte, no randomizado, retrospectivo y unicéntrico, en pacientes operados por inestabilidad glenohumeral anterior, entre Enero 2010 y Diciembre de 2018. Se incluyen sólo pacientes con defecto de Hill-Sachs on-track. Fueron comparados pacientes operados con cirugía de B versus B + R. Se consigna recurrencia, complicación, reoperación y sensación de inestabilidad. Además, se realizan y comparan puntajes de EVA, SSV, WOSI y qDASH. RESULTADOS: de los 105 pacientes que cumplieron criterios de inclusión, 78 (74.3%) realizaron seguimiento completo (52 B y 26 B + R, 4.3 años mediana de seguimiento). Hubo mayor tasa de recurrencia en grupo B en comparación a B + R, siendo esta diferencia no significativa (17.3% versus 7.7%, p = 0.21). No hubo diferencia significativa en dolor residual, sensación de inestabilidad residual, complicaciones o puntajes de escala EVA, qDASH, SSV ni WOSI. En análisis por subgrupo, pacientes con deportes de contacto, B tienen mayor tasa de recurrencia (24.1% versus 0%, p = 0.08) y complicaciones comparadas con B + R (41.4% versus 18.2%, p = 0.16), siendo estas diferencias no significativas. CONCLUSIÓN: no hubo diferencias significativas en tasa de recurrencia y evolución funcional entre cirugía de Bankart aislado o Bankart-remplissage para inestabilidad glenohumeral anterior asociada a defecto de Hill-Sachs on-track. Estudios comparativos, prospectivos deben realizarse para establecer recomendaciones definitivas.

Biomechanical Analysis of Anteroinferior Bankart Repair Anchor Types.

BACKGROUND: All-suture anchors and knotless anchors are increasingly used in the repair of anteroinferior labral tears in patients with shoulder instability. Optimal repair constructs may limit recurrent instability. PURPOSE: To perform a quantitative biomechanical comparison of 3 labral fixation devices for soft tissue Bankart lesions: knotless soft-body tensionable anchor (SB knotless), knotted soft-body anchor (SB knotted), and knotless hard-body PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference anchor (HB knotless). STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 21 glenoid specimens were randomized into 3 groups: SB knotless, SB knotted, and HB knotless. Artificial Bankart lesions were created at the anteroinferior labrum. Anchors were placed at the 3:30, 4:30, and 5:30 clockface positions, and sutures were passed through 1 cm of tissue. Anchors were tested simultaneously as one construct by pulling capsular tissue connected to the anteroinferior quadrant. Cyclic loading (5-25 N, 100 cycles) was followed by load-to-failure testing (15 mm/min). Biomechanical testing variables were collected, and failure mechanisms were recorded per individual anchor. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline specimen characteristics. There was no difference in elongation during cyclic loading (P = .40). The ultimate load to failure between SB knotless (309.7 ± 125.6 N), SB knotted (226.4 ± 34.8 N), and HB knotless (256.5 ± 90.5 N) did not significantly differ (P = .25). Failure mechanisms differed among groups (P = .008); mechanisms included anchor pullout (SB knotless: 33.3%; SB knotted: 23.8%; HB knotless: 28.6%), suture pull-through (SB knotless: 66.7%; SB knotted: 38.1%; HB knotless: 33.3%), and anchor fixation method failure, defined as knot failure for knotted anchors or locking mechanism failure for knotless anchors (SB knotless: 0.0%; SB knotted: 38.1%; HB knotless: 38.1%).). CONCLUSION: The SB knotless, SB knotted, and HB knotless labral fixation anchors studied exhibited comparable elongation during cyclic loading, stiffness, and ultimate loads to failure in a cadaveric model. However, the failure mechanisms significantly differed, as SB knotless anchors failed primarily from suture pull-through, while SB knotted and HB knotless anchors were subject to knot failure and locking mechanism failure, respectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data support the benefit of SB knotless anchors for anteroinferior labral repair in limiting knot failure typically seen with knotted anchors, perhaps demonstrating that all-suture anchors may have better locking mechanism quality than their PEEK counterparts.

Editorial Commentary: Glenoid Reconstruction With Autologous Tricortical Iliac Crest Represents an Alternative to Bankart Repair and Remplissage for Anterior Shoulder Instability With Subcritical Bone Loss.

Traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations are estimated to occur in approximately 2% of the population, frequently with concomitant anterior-inferior labral tears and associated Hill-Sachs lesions of the humeral head. So-called bipolar (or engaging) lesions with attritional bone loss may be exacerbated by recurrent instability, in terms of both prevalence and severity. The glenoid track concept and distance to dislocation have offered context for evaluating bipolar lesions, and increasingly, options for bone block reconstruction are considered for definitive treatment. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding coracoid transfer or Latarjet treatment, particularly with screw constructs in which catastrophic failure, hardware breakage, and secondary arthritis may develop. The Eden-Hybinette procedure, or tricortical iliac crest autograft bone augmentation, may represent a promising alternative to existing options while also restoring native glenoid bone stock. Additionally, suture button fixation may obviate the traditional pitfalls of prior bone block procedures while also achieving reproducible functional outcomes and low rates of recurrence. However, this must be considered alongside other contemporary arthroscopic treatments, such as combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage.