Search

Background: Bony Bankart lesions can be encountered during treatment of shoulder instability. Current arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques involve intra-articular suture placement, but the effect of these repair techniques on the integrity of the humeral head articular surface warrants further investigation. Purpose: To quantify the degree of humeral head articular cartilage damage secondary to current arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques in a cadaveric model. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Testing was performed in 13 matched pairs of cadaveric glenoids with simulated bony Bankart fractures, with a defect width of 25% of the glenoid diameter. Half of the fractures were repaired with a double-row technique, while the contralateral glenoids were repaired with a single-row technique. Samples were subjected to 20,000 cycles of internal-external rotation across a 90° arc at 2 Hz after a compressive load of 750 N, or 90% body weight (whichever was less) was applied to simulate wear. Cartilage defects on the humeral head were quantified through a custom MATLAB script. Mean cartilage cutout differences were analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: Both single- and double-row repairs showed macroscopic damage. The histomorphometric analysis demonstrated that the double-row technique resulted in a significantly (P =.036) more chondral damage (mean, 57,489.1 µm2; SD, 61,262.2 µm2) than the single-row repair (mean, 28,763.5 µm2; SD, 24,4990.2 µm2). Conclusion: Both single-row and double-row arthroscopic bony Bankart fixation techniques resulted in damage to the humeral head articular cartilage in the concavity-compression model utilized in this study. The double-row fixation technique resulted in a significantly increased cutout to the humeral head cartilage after simulated wear in this cadaveric model. Clinical Relevance: This study provides data demonstrating that placement of intra-articular suture during arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques may harm the humeral head cartilage. While the double-row repair of bony Bankart lesions is more stable, it results in increased cartilage damage. These findings suggest that alternative, cartilage-sparing arthroscopic techniques for bony Bankart repair should be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies comparing stability between single- and double-row arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques focused only on the measurements of tensile forces on the bony fragment without re-creating a more physiologic testing environment. Purpose: To compare dynamic stability and displacement between single- and double-row arthroscopic repair techniques for acute bony Bankart lesions in a concavity-compression cadaveric model simulating physiologic conditions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Testing was performed on 13 matched pairs of cadaveric glenoids with simulated bony Bankart fractures with a defect width of 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter. Half of the fractures were repaired with a double-row technique, and the contralateral glenoids were repaired with a single-row technique. To determine dynamic biomechanical stability and ultimate step-off of the repairs, a 150-N load and 2000 cycles of internal-external rotation at 1 Hz were applied to specimens to simulate early rehabilitation. Toggle was quantified throughout cycling with a coordinate measuring machine. Three-dimensional spatial measurements were calculated. After cyclic loading, the fracture displacement was measured. Results: The bony Bankart fragment–glenoid initial step-off was found to be significantly greater (P <.001) for the single-row technique (mean, 896 µm; SD, 282 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 436 µm; SD, 313 µm). The motion toggle was found to be significantly greater (P =.017) for the single-row technique (mean, 994 µm; SD, 711 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 408 µm; SD, 384 µm). The ultimate interface displacement was found to be significantly greater (P =.029) for the single-row technique (mean, 1265 µm; SD, 606 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 795 µm; SD, 398 µm). Conclusion: Using a concavity-compression glenohumeral cadaveric model, we found that the double-row arthroscopic fixation technique for bony Bankart repair resulted in superior stability and decreased displacement during simulated rehabilitation when compared with the single-row repair technique. Clinical Relevance: The findings from this study may help guide surgical decision-making by demonstrating superior biomechanical properties (improved initial step-off, motion toggle, and interface displacement) of the double-row bony Bankart repair technique when compared with single-row fixation. The double-row repair construct demonstrated increased stability of the bony Bankart fragment, which may improve bony Bankart healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]