Arthroscopic biceps transfer to the glenoid with Bankart repair grants satisfactory 2-year results for recurrent anteroinferior glenohumeral instability in subcritical bone loss

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Collin ◽  
Marko Nabergoj ◽  
Patrick J. Denard ◽  
Sidi Wang ◽  
Hugo Bothore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20%

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 866-872
Author(s):  
Luciano A. Rossi ◽  
Ignacio Tanoira ◽  
Tomás Gorodischer ◽  
Ignacio Pasqualini ◽  
Maximiliano Ranalletta
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Rugby Players

Background: There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Purpose: To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated. Results: In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level ( P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation ( P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (± SD) of 41 ± 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 ± 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 ± 3 points to 93.3 ± 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 ± 3 points to 93.7 ± 4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). Conclusion: In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.

scholarly journals When to Abandon the Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 425-430
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Levy ◽  
Nathan L. Grimm ◽  
Robert A. Arciero
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Humeral Head ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Context: Bone loss is a major factor in determining surgical choice in patients with anterior glenohumeral instability. Although bone loss has been described, there is no consensus on glenoid, humeral head, and bipolar bone loss limits for which arthroscopic-only management with Bankart repair can be performed. Objective: To provide guidelines for selecting a more complex repair or reconstruction (in lieu of arthroscopic-only Bankart repair) in the setting of glenohumeral instability based on available literature. Data Sources: An electronic search of the literature for the period from 2000 to 2019 was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE). Study Selection: Studies were included if they quantified bone loss (humeral head or glenoid) in the setting of anterior instability treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, follow-up, recurrence rates, and measures of bone loss (glenoid, humeral head, bipolar). Results: A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 measured glenoid bone loss, 5 measured humeral head bone loss, and 2 measured “tracking” without explicit measurement of humeral head bone loss. Measurement techniques for glenoid and humeral head bone loss varied widely. Recommendations for maximum glenoid bone loss for arthroscopic repair were largely <15% of glenoid width in recent studies. Recommendations regarding humeral head loss were more variable (many authors providing only qualitative descriptions) with increasing attention on glenohumeral tracking. Conclusion: It is essential that a standardized method of glenoid and humeral head bone loss measurements be performed preoperatively to assess which patients will have successful stabilization after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Glenoid bone loss should be <15%, and humeral head lesions should be “on track” if an arthroscopic-only Bankart is planned. If there is greater bone loss, adjunct or open procedures should be performed.

Critical Value of Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss That Leads to Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1975-1981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Jin Shin ◽  
Rag Gyu Kim ◽  
Yoon Sang Jeon ◽  
Tae Hun Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Critical Value ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Anterior Glenoid ◽  
Group A ◽  
Surgical Failure ◽  
Group B ◽  
Glenoid Erosion

Background: Generally, a glenoid bone loss greater than 20% to 25% is considered critical for poor surgical outcomes after a soft tissue repair. However, recent studies have suggested that the critical value should be lower. Purpose: To determine the critical value of anterior glenoid bone loss that led to surgical failure in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study included 169 patients with anterior glenoid erosion. The percentage of glenoid erosion was calculated as the ratio of the glenoid loss width and the glenoid width to the diameter of the outer-fitting circle based on the inferior portion of the glenoid contour. The critical value of the glenoid bone loss was analyzed by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the amount of glenoid bone loss: group A (less than the critical value) and group B (more than the critical value). Patients evaluated their shoulder function as a percentage of their preinjury level using the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Rowe score. Surgical failure was defined as the need for revision surgery or the presence of subjective symptoms of instability. Results: The optimal critical value of glenoid bone loss was 17.3% (area under the curve = 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.91; P < .001; sensitivity 75%; specificity 86.6%). Group A and B contained 134 and 35 patients, respectively. Shoulder functional scores were significantly lower in group B than in group A ( P < .001). Five patients (3.7%) in group A and 15 (42.9%) in group B had surgical failure ( P < .001). The SANE score was significantly lower in group B (83.8 ± 12.1) than in group A (92.9 ± 4.7, P = .001). Conclusion: An anterior glenoid bone loss of 17.3% or more with respect to the longest anteroposterior glenoid width should be considered as the critical amount of bone loss that may result in recurrent glenohumeral instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

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.

Management of Bone Loss in Glenohumeral Instability

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronak M. Patel ◽  
Nirav H. Amin ◽  
T. Sean Lynch ◽  
Anthony Miniaci
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability

scholarly journals The “Purse String” Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: A Simple Technique to Achieve Bankart Repair, Capsular Shift, and a Good Labral Bumper

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. e1245-e1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Gerardo Natera ◽  
Paolo Consigliere ◽  
Caroline Witney-Lagen ◽  
Juan Bruguera ◽  
Giuseppe Sforza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Simple Technique ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Purse String ◽  
Capsular Shift ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability

scholarly journals How to measure a Hill–Sachs lesion: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Maio ◽  
Marco Sarmento ◽  
Nuno Moura ◽  
António Cartucho
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Simultaneous Evaluation ◽  
Length Width ◽  
Anterior Glenohumeral Instability ◽  
The Hill ◽  
Mri Measurements

Quantifying bone loss is important to decide the best treatment for patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. Currently, there is no standard method available to make a precise evaluation of the Hill–Sachs lesion and predict its engagement before the surgical procedure. This literature review was performed in order to identify existing published imaging methods quantifying humeral head bone loss in Hill–Sachs lesions. Searches were undertaken in Scopus and PubMed databases from January 2008 until February 2018. The search terms were “Hill-Sachs” and “measurement” for the initial search and “Hill–Sachs bone loss” for the second, to be present in the keywords, abstracts and title. All articles that presented a method for quantifying measurement of Hill–Sachs lesions were analysed. Several methods are currently available to evaluate Hill–Sachs lesions. The length, width and depth measurements on CT scans show strong inter and intra-observer correlation coefficients. Three-dimensional CT is helpful for evaluation of bony injuries; however, there were no significant differences between 3D CT and 3D MRI measurements. The on-track off-track method using MRI allows a simultaneous evaluation of the Hill–Sachs and glenoid bone loss and also predicts the engaging lesions with good accuracy. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:151-157. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180031

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document