Search

Background An arthroscopic Bankart operation is the most common operative procedure to treat shoulder instability. In case of recurrence, both Bankart and Latarjet procedures are used as revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare the re-recurrence rate of instability and clinical results after arthroscopic revision Bankart and open revision Latarjet procedures following failed primary arthroscopic Bankart operations. Methods Consecutive patients operatively treated for shoulder instability at Turku University Hospital between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed. Patients who underwent a primary arthroscopic Bankart operation followed by a recurrence of instability and underwent a subsequent arthroscopic Bankart or open Latarjet revision operation with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were called in for a follow-up evaluation. The re-recurrence of instability, Subjective Shoulder Value, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index were assessed. Results Of 69 patients, 48 (dropout rate, 30%) were available for follow-up. Recurrent instability symptoms occurred in 13 patients (43%) after the revision Bankart procedure and none after the revision Latarjet procedure. A statistically and clinically significant difference in the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index was found between the patients after the revision Bankart and revision Latarjet operations (68% and 88%, respectively; P = .0166). Conclusions The redislocation rate after an arthroscopic revision Bankart operation is high. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes remain poor after a revision Bankart procedure compared with a revision Latarjet operation. We propose that in cases of recurring instability after a failed primary Bankart operation, an open Latarjet revision should be considered.

Background: High recurrence rates have been reported after anterior shoulder dislocations, regardless of the treatment utilized. However, the definition of recurrent instability has been inconsistent, making a comparison between studies difficult. Purpose: To report on the nature with which the rate of recurrent instability is reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair, across all levels of evidence, and to analyze factors that may affect the reported rate of recurrence. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published within the dates of January 2008 and September 2018. Studies in English that reported on the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were considered for inclusion in this review. A meta-regression was performed to test for a linear association between the reported recurrence rate and several continuous covariates, including mean age at surgery, mean length of follow-up, attrition rate (loss to follow-up percentage), and percentage of male patients. Results: A trim-and-fill meta-analysis yielded an estimated overall recurrence rate of 17.4% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.9%). There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the level of evidence (Q(3) = 10.98; P = .012). Significant associations were found with the recurrence rate through the meta-regression, including a negative association with mean age ( P = .009), a positive association with mean follow-up time ( P = .002), and a positive association with attrition rate ( P = .035). Conclusion: A call for standardization is necessary for reporting outcomes of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, especially with regard to the reporting of recurrence/failure rates, with careful consideration of the effects that may occur from patient demographics and study design. With no current recommendations for deeming failure, we suggest that all forms of instability be accounted for when determining a failed treatment procedure, with future studies placing an emphasis on greater control of the study design.

Objetivo: Evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la técnica artroscópica de Bankart utilizando un solo portal anterior en pacientes con inestabilidad anterior de hombro. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio prospectivo de 82 pacientes operados con técnica de Bankart artroscópica de hombro utilizando un solo portal anterior. Comparación con una serie histórica de 69 pacientes tratados con 2 portales anteriores. Fueron evaluados mediante la escala de Rowe, los cuestionarios DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) y OIS (Oxford Instability Shoulder), arcos de movilidad y escalas analógicas visuales para dolor y satisfacción. Resultados: Tras un seguimiento medio de 36 meses, no había diferencias significativas entre grupos respecto a las valoraciones funcionales, calidad de vida o satisfacción del paciente. El tiempo quirúrgico fue significativamente menor en el grupo 1-portal. En el grupo 1-portal hubo 2 pacientes con neuroapraxia y 2 reluxaciones, mientras que en el grupo 2-portales fueron uno y 2, respectivamente. Los peores resultados funcionales se asociaban a la presencia de lesión SLAP tipo III. Conclusiones: Ambas técnicas fueron satisfactorias respecto a los resultados funcionales y complicaciones, excepto en la presencia de lesiones SLAP tipo III. Con la técnica de un portal anterior el tiempo quirúrgico fue más corto, y los costes, menores al prescindir de una segunda cánula y de un pasador de hilos. 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.

Background: The optimal surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability remains controversial. Hypothesis: (1) Implants and facility-related costs are the primary drivers of variation in direct costs between arthroscopic Bankart and Latarjet procedures, and (2) distal tibial allograft (DTA) is more costly than Latarjet as a function of the graft expense. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Intraoperative cost data were derived for all arthroscopic anterior stabilizations and Latarjet and DTA procedures performed at a single academic institution from January 2012 to September 2017. Cost comparisons were made between those undergoing arthroscopic stabilization and Latarjet and between Latarjet and DTA. Multivariate regressions were performed to determine the difference in direct costs accounting for various patient- and surgery-related factors. Results: A total of 87 arthroscopic stabilizations, 44 Latarjet procedures, and 5 DTA procedures were performed during the study period. Arthroscopic Bankart repair was found to be 17% more costly than Latarjet, with suture anchor implant cost being the primary driver of cost. DTA was 2.9-fold more costly than Latarjet, with greater costs across all domains. Multivariate analysis also found the number of prior arthroscopic procedures performed ( P = .007) and whether the procedure was performed in an ambulatory or inpatient setting ( P < .0001) to be significantly associated with higher direct costs. Conclusion: Latarjet is less costly than arthroscopic Bankart repair, largely because of implant cost. Value-driven strategies to narrow the cost differential could focus on performing these procedures in an outpatient setting in addition to reducing overall implant cost for arthroscopic procedures. Perceived potential benefits of DTA over Latarjet may be outweighed by higher costs.

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. publishedVersion