Arthroscopic Bankart repair associated with subscapularis augmentation (ASA) versus open Latarjet to treat recurrent anterior shoulder instability with moderate glenoid bone loss: clinical comparison of two series

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Russo ◽  
G. Della Rotonda ◽  
F. Cautiero ◽  
M. Ciccarelli ◽  
M. Maiotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Clinical Comparison ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

scholarly journals State of the art for treatment of bony defects around anterior shoulder instability—the American perspective

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Kakazu ◽  
Matthew R. LeVasseur ◽  
Robert A. Arciero ◽  
Augustus D. Mazzocca
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcome ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Distal Tibia ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Index Procedure ◽  
American Perspective ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

AbstractWhile arthroscopic Bankart repair yields high success rates, bone loss on the glenoid or humeral head can portend a poor outcome. The authors recommend a thorough evaluation including computed tomography (CT) scanning to best evaluate the amount of bone loss. Multiple studies have shown that the outcomes of revision stabilization procedures are inferior to the respective primary procedure; thus, it is of paramount importance to select the correct index procedure to optimize patient outcome. The authors present the American perspective on treating shoulder instability. For patients with a small on-track Hill Sachs lesion and less than 10 % glenoid bone loss, an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair is appropriate. This procedure is also recommended for bony Bankart lesions, as well as in overhead throwing athletes. With an engaging Hill Sachs lesion and less than 15 % glenoid bone loss, the authors recommend the addition of a remplissage to the arthroscopic Bankart repair. For patients with up to 15 % bone loss or following a failed previous arthroscopic repair, the authors advocate for open Bankart repair. They recommend Latarjet in patients with a non-engaging Hill Sachs lesion greater than 15 % bone loss. Patients with bone loss over 30 % would benefit from bone grafting with iliac crest autograft or distal tibia allograft for stabilization. In summary, the authors believe that the index procedure provides an opportunity to optimize patient outcome and careful consideration of the treatment options is warranted.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110018
Author(s):  
Emilio Calvo ◽  
Gonzalo Luengo ◽  
Diana Morcillo ◽  
Antonio M. Foruria ◽  
María Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Arthroscopic Latarjet

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes of three procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: arthroscopic Bankart repair, capsular shift, and open Latarjet

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Xu ◽  
Kailun Wu ◽  
Qianli Ma ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Yong Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Subjective Perception ◽  
Capsular Shift ◽  
Shift Group ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Abstract Background Best surgical of recurrent anterior shoulder instability remained controversial. We knew little about the superiority and choice between traditional open and modern arthroscopic techniques. We hypothesized that outcomes of all patients will be similar regardless of surgical technique. Methods A retrospective case-cohort analysis of 168 patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability was conducted from September 2010 to December 2013. All cases (mean age 30.8 [range 18–50] years) were performed with arthroscopic Bankart repair (33 males/20 females), open Latarjet (34 males/18 females), and capsular shift (31 males/14 females). The average follow-up was 67.6 months (range 60–72). The shoulder instability index score (ISIS) was more than 3 with an average of 6.4. Results All treatments proved to be effective in improving shoulder functional status and reducing symptoms, while Latarjet had an advantage over subjective perception. The Rowe scores in arthroscopic Bankart, open Latarjet, and capsular shift group were 92.3 ± 1.5, 96.2 ± 2.1, and 93.2 ± 2.3, respectively, with significant difference. There was no significant difference in other functional outcomes. However, the Latarjet group in subjective results (subjective shoulder value (SSV) and subjective shoulder value for sport practice (SSV Sport)) was superior to the others (P < 0.05). There were two relapsed cases in arthroscopic Bankart and capsular shift group, respectively, and no recurrence in open Latarjet group. Conclusion Arthroscopic Bankart repair has the advantage of mini-invasion and rapid recovery. Capsular shift offers stabilizing of inferior or multidirectional type, especially for little bone defect. Latarjet was more effective in reducing recurrence with higher stability. Level of evidence Therapeutic level III

Mapping of glenoid bone loss in recurrent anterior shoulder instability: is there a particular deficit pattern?

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1676-1680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Bockmann ◽  
Arne Johannes Venjakob ◽  
Frank Reichwein ◽  
Marthe Hagenacker ◽  
Wolfgang Nebelung
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

A lower Instability Severity Index score threshold may better predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000584
Author(s):  
Samuel I Rosenberg ◽  
Simon J Padanilam ◽  
Brandon Alec Pagni ◽  
Vehniah K Tjong ◽  
Ujash Sheth
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Instability ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Postoperative Recurrence ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Score Threshold ◽  
Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

ImportanceThe Instability Severity Index (ISI) score was developed to evaluate a patient’s risk of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. While patients with an ISI score of >6 were originally recommended to undergo an open procedure (ie, Latarjet) to minimise the risk of recurrence, recent literature has called into question the utility of the ISI score.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of the ISI score as a tool to predict postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart procedures.Evidence reviewArticles were included if study participants underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability and reported postoperative recurrence by ISI score at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Pearson’s χ2 test was used to compare recurrence rates among patients above and below an ISI score of 4. Sensitivity, specificity, mean ISI scores and predictive value of individual factors of the ISI score were qualitatively reviewed.FindingsFour studies concluded the ISI score was effective in predicting postoperative recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair; however, these studies found threshold values lower than the previously proposed score of >6 may be more predictive of recurrent instability. A pooled analysis of these studies found patients with an ISI score <4 to experience significantly lower recurrence rates when compared with patients with a score ≥4 (6.3% vs 26.0%, p<0.0001). The mean ISI score among patients who experienced recurrent instability was also significantly higher than those who did not.Conclusions and relevanceThe ISI score as constructed by Balg and Boileau may have clinical utility to help predict recurrent anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, this review found the threshold values published in their seminal article to be insufficient predictors of recurrent instability. Instead, a lower score threshold may provide as a better predictor of failure. The paucity of level I and II investigations limits the strength of these conclusions, suggesting a need for further large, prospective studies evaluating the predictive ability of the ISI score.Level of evidenceIV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document