Long-Term Outcomes After Bankart Shoulder Stabilization.

Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. Electronic address: .
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.19). 02/2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.11.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to analyze long-term outcomes in patients who have undergone open or arthroscopic Bankart repair and (2) to evaluate study methodologic quality through validated tools. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Level I to IV Evidence using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies after open or arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimum of 5 years' follow-up were analyzed. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were extracted and reported. Study methodologic quality was evaluated with Modified Coleman Methodology Scores and Quality Appraisal Tool scores. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies (1,781 patients). All but 2 studies were Level III or IV Evidence with low Modified Coleman Methodology Scores and Quality Appraisal Tool scores. Patients analyzed were young (mean age, 28 years) male patients (81%) with unilateral dominant shoulder (61%), post-traumatic recurrent (mean of 11 dislocations before surgery) anterior shoulder instability without significant glenoid bone loss. The mean length of clinical follow-up was 11 years. There was no significant difference in recurrence of instability with arthroscopic (11%) versus open (8%) techniques (P = .06). There was no significant difference in instability recurrence with arthroscopic suture anchor versus open Bankart repair (8.5% v 8%, P = .82). There was a significant difference in rate of return to sport between open (89%) and arthroscopic (74%) techniques (P < .01), whereas no significant difference was observed between arthroscopic suture anchor (87%) and open repair (89%) (P = .43). There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative osteoarthritis between arthroscopic suture anchor and open Bankart repair (26% and 33%, respectively; P = .059). There was no significant difference in Rowe or Constant scores between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability using arthroscopic suture anchor and open Bankart techniques yields similar long-term clinical outcomes, with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent instability, clinical outcome scores, or rate of return to sport. No significant difference was shown in the incidence of postoperative osteoarthritis with open versus arthroscopic suture anchor repair. Study methodologic quality was poor, with most studies having Level III or IV Evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of studies with Level I through IV Evidence.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sixty-one shoulders in 57 adolescents underwent primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for labral tears sustained during contact sports (all Stanmore type 1). Mean follow-up was 22 months, mean age 16.8 (13-18) years. Postoperatively, the median subjective improvement was 90%, median VAS pain was 0 and mean Oxford Instability Score was 26.8. Sixty-one per cent returned to preinjury sporting level. A higher than expected proportion reported recurrent dislocation, with 15% followed up for 1 year and 31% for 4 years. Of these 11 requiring further surgery, 90% of redislocations occurred while playing rugby. Sex, type of sport, hyperlaxity and tear morphology were not significantly related to recurrence. Adolescents are at high risk for recurrence following arthroscopic stabilization. Patients should be counselled for the higher recurrence rate and consideration should be made for other aetiological factors such as returning to contact sports and joint hyperlaxity.
    Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B 01/2015; 24(3). DOI:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000135 · 0.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary aim of this study was to record how orthopaedic surgeons are currently managing acute first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (AFASD) 8 years after introduction of the Dutch national guideline: "acute primary shoulder dislocation, diagnostics and treatment" in 2005. The second aim was to evaluate how these surgeons treat recurrent instability after AFASD. An online questionnaire regarding the management of AFASD and recurrent shoulder instability was held amongst orthopaedic surgeons of all 98 Dutch hospitals. The overall response rate was 60 %. Of the respondents, 75 % had a local protocol for managing AFASD, of which 28 % had made changes in their treatment protocol after the introduction of the national guideline. The current survey showed wide variety in the overall treatment policies for AFASD. Twenty-seven percent of the orthopaedic surgeons were currently unaware of the national guideline. The variability in treatment for AFASD was present throughout the whole treatment from which policy at the emergency department; when to operate for recurrent instability; type of surgical technique for stabilization and type of fixation of the labrum. As for the treatment of recurrent instability, the same variability was seen: 36 % of the surgeons perform only arthroscopic procedures, 7 % only open and 57 % perform both open and arthroscopic procedures. Despite the introduction of the national guideline for the initial management of AFASD in 2005, still great variety among orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands was present. As for the surgical stabilization technique, the vast majority of the respondents are performing an arthroscopic shoulder stabilization procedure at the expense of the more traditional open procedure as a first treatment option for post-traumatic shoulder instability.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 02/2015; 135(4). DOI:10.1007/s00402-015-2156-3 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose Shoulder instability frequently recurs in young patients without operative treatment. Both open and arthroscopic approaches to shoulder stabilization with labral repair and capsulorrhaphy have been described and are routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these approaches, with multiple meta-analyses performed to synthesize these trials; however, the results remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the current meta-analyses to identify the current state of the art. Methods In this study we evaluate available scientific support for the ability of both arthroscopic and open soft-tissue stabilization techniques to restore stability of the shoulder by performing a systematic review of the literature for previous meta-analyses. Data were extracted for rates of recurrence and patient outcomes. Study quality was measured with the Oxman-Guyatt and QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) systems. The Jadad algorithm was applied independently by 4 authors to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of available evidence. Results After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 meta-analyses were included. Both studies published prior 2007 concluded that open stabilization provided lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic stabilization, the 3 studies published in 2007 are discordant, and all 3 studies published after 2008 concluded that open and arthroscopic stabilization provided equivalent results. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<3) signifying major flaws. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad algorithm, and this meta-analysis found no difference in recurrence rates between open and arthroscopic stabilization. Conclusions This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization suggests that according to current best available evidence, there are no significant differences in failure rates. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
    Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 09/2014; Epub ahead of print. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.07.008 · 3.19 Impact Factor