Dataset Information

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Primary Versus Recurrent Anterior Instability in Athletes Results in Excellent Clinical Outcomes, High Rates of Return to Play, and Low Recurrence Rates

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of athletes who have been treated for either primary or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR for anterior shoulder instability, with a minimum of 24 months’ follow-up, was performed. Those who underwent ABR for primary instability were matched in a 1:1 ratio for age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play to those who underwent ABR for recurrent instability. The rate, level, and timing of return to play (RTP), as well as the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, were evaluated. Additionally, the recurrence rate, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the same operation again were compared.

Results

After analysis of 467 patients, 100 athletes who underwent ABR for primary instability were identified and subsequently pair matched to 100 patients who underwent ABR for recurrent instability, with a mean age of 27.2 years, 87% male patients, 68% collision athletes, and a mean follow-up period of 61.9 months. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of RTP (80% vs 79%, P = .86) or RTP at the preinjury level (65% vs 65%, P >. 999); however, there was a significant difference in time to RTP (6.9 ± 2.9 months vs 5.9 ± 2.5 months, P = .02). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale score, Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, patient satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the operation again (P > .05 for all). There was no difference in the rate of recurrent instability after ABR (10% vs 16%, P = .29).

Conclusions

ABR results in excellent clinical outcomes, high rates of RTP, and low recurrence rates for both athletes with primary instability and those with recurrent instability.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study.

SUBMITTER: Davey M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8551395 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABRR) compared with the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with a labral tear and a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.MethodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent either ABRR or the AL procedure for a diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability with a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Recurrent instability, the visual analog scale score, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and return to work or sport were evaluated.ResultsOur study included 41 patients treated with ABRR and 26 treated with the AL procedure. At final follow-up, there was no difference between patients who underwent ABRR and those who underwent the AL procedure in the reported Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (21.8% vs 28.2%, P = .33) or any of its components, the visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 1.4, P = .32), the Subjective Shoulder Value (78.4 vs 74.5, P = .6062), the rate of satisfaction (81.6% vs 85.6%, P = .54), or whether patients would undergo surgery again (81.6% vs 96.1%, P = .16). Overall, 5 patients in the ABRR group and 2 patients in the AL group had recurrent instability events (12.2% vs 7.8%, P = .70), with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent dislocation (12.2% vs 3.8%, P = .39).ConclusionsIn patients with anterior shoulder instability and a concomitant Hill-Sachs lesion, both ABRR and the AL procedure were shown to be reliable treatments, with a low rate of recurrent instability and excellent patient-reported outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, our study could not determine whether there was critical glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing ABRR, and surgeons should still exercise caution in performing ABRR in patients with high-grade glenoid bone loss or in those with failed prior stabilizations.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.