Clinical outcomes in prospective versus retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective, and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play among studies of different levels of evidence. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" was used, with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score out of 100. A χ² test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. A total of 193 studies were included in the analysis, with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. These studies encompassed a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of redislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective studies (P <.001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective studies (P =.004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (P =.013). There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play between prospective and retrospective studies (90% and 91%, respectively; P =.548). The overall rate of non-instability complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% vs. 0.78% in the retrospective studies (P =.002). The overall rates of recurrent dislocations-subluxations are higher in prospective studies than retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]