Dataset Information

Arthroscopic Bankart and Remplissage for Anteroinferior Instability With Subcritical Bone Loss Has a Low Recurrence Rate.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To demonstrate whether arthroscopic remplissage can achieve good outcomes without significantly impairing shoulder function.

Methods

Consecutive patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation, glenoid bone loss <20%, and engaging Hill-Sachs lesion who were operated with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage between 2013 and 2016 were identified. Patients were evaluated clinically for shoulder instability, range of motion, and scored as per Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and University of California at Los Angeles score. The data were analyzed with the paired t test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test, as applicable. For all analyses, statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included in the study. The average age of the patients was 30 years (range, 18-47 years), with 91.67% (n = 22) male patients and 8.33% (n = 2) female patients. The range of motion at follow-up was comparable with the normal side, with loss of external rotation of 3.33° (n = 24). Significant improvement was observed in the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (21.95 vs 41.29, P < 0.001) and University of California at Los Angeles score (18.33 vs 30.29, P < .001). A failure rate of 4.17% (1 patient with a positive apprehension test) was seen.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with the remplissage procedure helps to re-establish stability and achieve good shoulder outcomes for patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation and an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion and without significant glenoid bone loss.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic.

SUBMITTER: Pathak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9042916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTreatment for patients with anterior glenohumeral instability with subcritical bone loss is evolving. The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without Hill-Sachs remplissage in patients with <15% glenoid bone loss.MethodsA multicenter retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair (IBR) or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) by 4 shoulder specialists between 2013 and 2019. Range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected at baseline and 2 years postoperative: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, complications, and revisions also were reviewed.ResultsA total of 123 patients were available, including 75 IBR and 48 REMP. Baseline demographics, activity, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean glenoid bone loss (2.5% vs 6.1%: P < .001) was greater in REMP, although the number of on-track lesions was similar (98.7% vs 93.8%: P = .298). WOSI scores were improved for REMP (196.5 vs 42.7: P = .004), but otherwise no difference in postoperative PROs or ROM. Differences between cohorts did not reach significance in return to sport (73% vs 83%: P = .203), recurrence (9.3% vs 2.1%: P = .148), or revisions (6.8% vs 2.1%: P = .403). For on-track lesions there were 6 recurrences in IBR (6 of 74; 8.1%) and 1 recurrence in REMP (1 of 45; 2.2%).ConclusionsDespite slightly worse pathology, patients with subcritical bone loss who undergo REMP experience similar short-term postoperative function to isolated IBR. Recurrence, revision, and return to sport favored REMP but this study was underpowered to show statistical significance. Recurrence was common following IBR, despite subcritical glenoid bone loss and primarily on-track lesions, suggesting that REMP can be considered in on-track lesions.Level of evidenceIII, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Project description:IntroductionAnterior dislocations, the most common type of shoulder dislocation, are often complicated by subsequent instability. With recurrent dislocations there often is attrition of the labrum and progressive loss of the anterior bony contour of the glenoid. Treatment options for this pathology involve either soft tissue repair or bony augmentation procedure. The optimal management remains unknown and current clinical practice is highly varied.Methods and analysisThe Shoulder instability Trial comparing Arthroscopic stabilization Benefits compared with Latarjet procedure Evaluation (STABLE) is an ongoing multi-centre, pilot randomized controlled trial of 82 patients who have been diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and subcritical glenoid bone loss. Patients are randomized to either soft tissue repair (Bankart + Remplissage) or bony augmentation (Latarjet procedure). The primary outcome for this pilot is to assess trial feasibility and secondary outcomes include recurrent instability as well as functional outcomes up to two years post-operatively.ConclusionsThis trial will help to identify the optimal treatment for patients with recurrent shoulder instability with a focus on determining which treatment option results in reduced risk of recurrent dislocation and improved patient outcomes. Findings from this trial will guide clinical practice and improve care for patients with shoulder instability.Trial registrationThis study has been registered on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov with the following identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03585491, registered 13 July 2018, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03585491?term=NCT03585491&draw=2&rank=1 .Ethics and disseminationThis study has ethics approval from the McMaster University/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (REB) (approval #4942). Successful completion will significantly impact the global management of patients with recurrent instability. This trial will develop a network of collaboration for future high-quality trials in shoulder instability.