The Effect of Subcritical Bone Loss and Exposure on Recurrent Instability After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Intercollegiate American Football

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1769-1775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Dickens ◽  
Brett D. Owens ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Thomas M. DeBerardino ◽  
Brendan D. Masini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
American Football ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

scholarly journals Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in the Military

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0011
Author(s):  
Sean E. Slaven ◽  
Robert Tardif ◽  
Kevin Foley ◽  
Kenneth L. Cameron ◽  
Matthew A. Posner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Active Duty ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Arthroscopic Stabilization ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Active Duty Military ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Successful Group ◽  
Return To Duty

Objectives: There is no consensus on the optimal method of stabilization (arthroscopic or open) for revision anterior shoulder stabilization. The purpose of this study was to determine the success of revision arthroscopic stabilization at preventing further recurrence in active duty military patients. Methods: 53 revision arthroscopic stabilizations were performed at our institution between 2005-2016 for recurrent anterior shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart index procedure. Shoulders with glenoid bone loss >20% were excluded from the study. The primary outcome of interest was the ability to return to activity/duty without subsequent instability. Patients were followed for time to a subsequent instability event and repeat revision arthroscopic stabilization following return to duty/activity. Results: Patient age at revision surgery averaged 22.9 ± 4.3 years. Mean follow up was 6.1 years (range 0.4-12.9). 34 out of 53 patients (64%) returned to duty without recurrent instability following revision arthroscopic anterior stabilization. 19 patients (36%) experienced recurrent instability following return to duty after revision arthroscopic stabilization. Glenoid bone loss averaged 7.8% ± 8.0% in the successful group and 6.5 % ± 6.5% in the failure group (p=0.573). Durability of the index surgery was significantly longer in the successful group (38.1 ± 31.3 months vs. 20.5 ± 17.8 months, p=.029). There was no difference between groups in patient age or number of anchors used in the index or revision stabilization procedures. Conclusion: Revision arthroscopic stabilization of failed primary arthroscopic Bankart repair has a failure rate of 36% in a young active duty military population, which is substantially higher than primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in this population and higher than revision arthroscopic Bankart repair in other patient populations. The similar amounts of bone loss between groups indicates that bone loss is not the primary determinant of failure in revision arthroscopic stabilization.

scholarly journals Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas P. E. Verweij ◽  
Sanne H. van Spanning ◽  
Adriano Grillo ◽  
Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs ◽  
Simone Priester-Vink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Competitive Sports ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Surgical Delay ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
Risk Factors For Recurrence ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Purpose Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. Methods Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included. Results Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21–30 years. Conclusion Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment. Level of evidence Level IV.

Risk Factors for Recurrence After Arthroscopic Instability Repair—The Importance of Glenoid Bone Loss >15%, Patient Age, and Duration of Symptoms: A Matched Cohort Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 3036-3041
Author(s):  
Travis J. Dekker ◽  
Liam A. Peebles ◽  
Andrew S. Bernhardson ◽  
Samuel I. Rosenberg ◽  
Colin P. Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Glenoid Bone Loss ◽  
Bankart Repair ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Recurrent Instability ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair ◽  
The Mean

Background: Glenoid bone loss (GBL) has been implicated as a risk factor for failure of arthroscopic anterior glenohumeral instability repair. Although certain amounts of GBL are associated with higher recurrence rates, there are limited studies on successes versus failures in these cohorts. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with and without GBL to determine a threshold percentage of GBL that predicts success. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability between 2004 and 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Patients with ≤25% GBL were included. Patients with no GBL were grouped and compared with those having 5% to 25% GBL. Outcomes included Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, with evidence of recurrent instability. Patients with and without GBL were statistically compared with respect to outcomes and recurrence rates. Results: Of 434 eligible patients, the cases of 405 (45 female, 360 male; mean age, 27.5 years [range, 18-47 years]) were followed for a mean 61 months (range, 48-96 months). There were 189 (46.6%) with no GBL and 216 (53.3%) with GBL; the mean GBL of the latter cohort was 15% (range, 5%-25%). The mean duration of instability symptoms was 7.9 months (range, 1-21 months) and was significantly longer in the GBL group ( P < .05). The mean recurrence rate was 14.8%, which was significantly greater in patients presenting with GBL versus those with none (48/216 [22.2%] vs 12/189 [6.3%]; P < .01). Within the GBL group, GBL ≥15%, duration of symptoms >5 months, and younger age (<20 years) were independent risk factors for failure ( P < .01). Patients with any GBL had >4-times greater odds of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.16-8.21). Moreover, patients presenting for arthroscopic Bankart repair with GBL ≥15% had nearly 3-times greater odds of recurrent instability. Conclusion: GBL ≥15% in an active patient population portends to increased odds of recurrent instability events and inferior clinical outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Furthermore, nonmodifiable risk factors, such as age (<20 years) and duration of symptoms before presentation (>5 months), significantly affect risk of recurrence and should be key factors when counseling patients on risk of failure and determining the ideal procedure for the individual patient.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document