Search

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.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the arthroscopic Bankart repair technique using a single anterior portal in patients with anterior shoulder instability., Patients and Methods: Prospective study of 82 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair using a single anterior portal. Comparison with a historical series of 69 patients treated with two anterior portals. The patients were evaluated by the Rowe scale, and DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and OIS (Oxford Instability Shoulder) questionnaires, range of motion and visual analogue scales for pain and patient satisfaction., Results: After a mean follow-up of 36 months, there were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical or functional scores, quality of life or patient satisfaction. Surgical time was significantly shorter in the 1-portal group. In group 1-portal there were 2 patients with neurapraxias and 2 re-dislocations, while in group 2-portals were 1 and 2, respectively. The worst functional results were associated with the presence of a type III SLAP lesion., Conclusions: Both techniques were satisfactory regarding functional outcomes and complications, except for type III SLAP lesions. Using only one anterior portal, the surgical time was shorter, and the costs were lower when dispensing with a second cannula and a suture passing instrument., (Copyright © 2019 SECOT. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

To achieve pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a complement to other analgesics. However, experimental studies have raised concerns that these drugs may have a detrimental effect on soft tissue-to-bone healing and, thus, have a negative effect on the outcome. We wanted to investigate if there are any differences in the clinical outcome after the arthroscopic Bankart procedure for patients who received NSAIDs prescription compared with those who did not. 477 patients with a primary arthroscopic Bankart procedure were identified in the Norwegian shoulder instability register and included in the study. 32.5% received prescription of NSAIDs post-operatively. 370 (78%) of the patients answered a follow-up questionnaire containing the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index (WOSI). Mean follow-up was 21 months. WOSI at follow-up were 75% in the NSAID group and 74% in the control group. 12% of the patients in the NSAID group and 14% in the control group reported recurrence of instability. The reoperation rate was 5% in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Prescription of short-term post-operative NSAID treatment in the post-operative period did not influence on the functional outcome after arthroscopic Bankart procedures., (© 2014 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability is a disabling pathology that can be successfully treated by arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the postoperative recovery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the postoperative pain and functional recovery following arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective outcomes registry database. Postoperative recovery outcomes of either a primary or revision arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedures were compared. A minimum of 1-year follow-up was required. Outcomes measures included pain visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) function score, ASES index score, and single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) score. Overall, 787 patients underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart, 36 underwent revision arthroscopic Bankart and 75 underwent an open Latarjet procedure. Results: When compared to primary arthroscopic Bankart, open Latarjet demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores at 6 weeks (p = 0.03), 3 months (p = 0.01), and 2 years (p < 0.05). Medium-term outcomes for ASES scores and SANE score, at 1 and 2 years showed no difference. Latarjet demonstrated significantly lower (p < 0.05) preoperative early postoperative VAS pain scores with no difference at 1 year or 2 years when compared to primary Bankart. There was no difference in ASES function or index between Bankart and Latarjet. Revision Bankart provided inferior outcomes for VAS, ASES function, and ASES index when compared to primary Bankart and Latarjet at 1 year and 2 years. Conclusions: Primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet provided nearly equivalent improvements in pain (VAS) and functional outcomes (ASES, SANE, VR-12) during the early recovery phase (2 years). This study supports the use of either procedure in the primary treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability. Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair demonstrated deteriorating outcomes at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recurrent traumatic glenohumeral instability is a complex problem with multiple variables to consider, but patient demographics, activities, as well as clinical and radiographic findings provide significant information to help choose the best treatment option. Although nonoperative treatment is a viable option for primary glenohumeral instability and in-season instability, recurrent instability exhibits anatomic factors which render nonsurgical treatment limited in scope. A proper patient history, clinical examination, and standard and advanced imaging are necessary in the assessment of patients with recurrent traumatic instability. Age, activity, hypermobility, tissue quality, glenoid and humeral head bone stock, and any prior surgical treatment are factors that must be considered for surgical planning. Open and arthroscopic Bankart repairs are good surgical options when bone loss is not an issue but increasing glenoid or humeral osseous deficiency in this setting frequently warrants additional procedures which address bony insufficiency. Controversy remains concerning the threshold value for glenoid bony deficiency and combined, bipolar defects, but this critical number may be less than previously suspected. Despite this controversy, successful surgical treatment of recurrent glenohumeral instability is possible when properly assessed and the correct surgery applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Shoulder arthroscopy continues to use minimally invasive techniques to diagnose and treat the athlete's shoulder. Instability can result from trauma or repetitive forceful movements. Arthroscopy stabilization includes multiple quadrant surgery, proper capsular tensioning, and allows dynamic evaluation of the anatomic repair without disruption of the subscapularis.Methods/materials: Bone deficits may limit soft tissue stabilization procedures. The arthroscope is helpful in determining the amount of glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs impression, positions of engagement, and associated soft tissue laxity that may compromise or alter treatment.Results: A series of 450 patients are presented to review repairs-including 20 first-time dislocators, 24 revision surgeries, 330 suture anchor repairs, and 120 capsular repairs. Successful stabilization occurred in 93% of the patients studied.Conclusion: Successful management of the unstable athlete's shoulder includes early intervention, near-normal range of motion, absent apprehension, and normal strength and function. Anatomic repairs provide the best opportunity for the athlete to return to their sport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]