Background: Glenoid bone loss (GBL) has been implicated as a risk factor for failure of arthroscopic anterior glenohumeral instability repair. Although certain amounts of GBL are associated with higher recurrence rates, there are limited studies on successes versus failures in these cohorts. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with and without GBL to determine a threshold percentage of GBL that predicts success. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability between 2004 and 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Patients with ≤25% GBL were included. Patients with no GBL were grouped and compared with those having 5% to 25% GBL. Outcomes included Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, with evidence of recurrent instability. Patients with and without GBL were statistically compared with respect to outcomes and recurrence rates. Results: Of 434 eligible patients, the cases of 405 (45 female, 360 male; mean age, 27.5 years [range, 18-47 years]) were followed for a mean 61 months (range, 48-96 months). There were 189 (46.6%) with no GBL and 216 (53.3%) with GBL; the mean GBL of the latter cohort was 15% (range, 5%-25%). The mean duration of instability symptoms was 7.9 months (range, 1-21 months) and was significantly longer in the GBL group ( P < .05). The mean recurrence rate was 14.8%, which was significantly greater in patients presenting with GBL versus those with none (48/216 [22.2%] vs 12/189 [6.3%]; P < .01). Within the GBL group, GBL ≥15%, duration of symptoms >5 months, and younger age (<20 years) were independent risk factors for failure ( P < .01). Patients with any GBL had >4-times greater odds of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.16-8.21). Moreover, patients presenting for arthroscopic Bankart repair with GBL ≥15% had nearly 3-times greater odds of recurrent instability. Conclusion: GBL ≥15% in an active patient population portends to increased odds of recurrent instability events and inferior clinical outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Furthermore, nonmodifiable risk factors, such as age (<20 years) and duration of symptoms before presentation (>5 months), significantly affect risk of recurrence and should be key factors when counseling patients on risk of failure and determining the ideal procedure for the individual patient.

Background: Patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address. Complications related to this procedure include large amounts of bone loss, bone resorption, and issues with retained hardware that necessitate the need for revision surgery. Purpose: To determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure with fresh distal tibial allograft. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent revision of a failed Latarjet procedure with distal tibial allograft were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, duration of instability, number of prior surgeries, examination findings, plain radiographic and computed tomography (CT) data, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) classification. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsular release with subsequent repair, and fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes before and after revision were assessed according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with a mean age of 25.5 years (range, 19-38 years) and a mean follow-up time of 47 months (range, 36-60 months) after revision with distal tibial allograft. Before distal tibial allograft augmentation, the mean percentage glenoid bone loss was 30.3% (range, 25%-49%). All patients after their Latarjet stabilization had recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31, 35.5%) or subluxation (20/31, 64.5%), and all patients had symptoms consistent with recurrent shoulder instability upon physical examination. Radiographs demonstrated 2 fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade was 0.5 (range, 0-3), and CT scans revealed that a mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 37%-100%). Patient-reported outcome scores improved significantly pre- to postoperatively for ASES (40 to 92, P = .001), SANE (44 to 91, P = .001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, P = .001). There were no cases of recurrence, and a final CT scan of the distal tibial revision demonstrated a complete union at the glenoid–distal tibial allograft interface in 92% of patients. Conclusion: The majority of the failed Latarjet procedures included in this study had near-complete resorption of the coracoid graft and hardware complications. At a minimum follow-up time of 36 months, patients who underwent revision treatment for a failed Latarjet procedure with a fresh distal tibial allograft demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and near-complete osseous union at the glenoid-allograft interface. Although patients evaluated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address, fresh distal tibial allograft augmentation is a viable and highly effective revision procedure to treat this patient population.

Background: Anterior and posterior shoulder instabilities are entirely different entities. The presenting complaints and symptoms vastly differ between patients with these 2 conditions, and a clear understanding of these differences can help guide effective treatment. Purpose: To compare a matched cohort of patients with anterior and posterior instability to clearly outline the differences in the initial presenting history and overall outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Consecutive patients with either anterior or posterior glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled; patients were excluded if they had more than 10% anterior or posterior glenoid bone loss, multidirectional instability, neurologic injury, or prior surgery. Patients were assigned to anterior or posterior shoulder instability groups based on the history and clinical examination documenting the primary direction of instability, with imaging findings to confirm a labral tear associated with the specific direction of instability. Preoperative demographic data, injury history, and overall clinical outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and Western Ontario Shoulder Index [WOSI]) were assessed and compared statistically between the 2 cohorts. Patients were indicated for surgery if they elected to proceed with surgical management or did not respond to a course of nonoperative management. Results: The study included 103 patients who underwent anterior stabilization (mean age, 23.5 years; range, 18-36 years) and 97 patients who underwent posterior stabilization (mean age, 24.5 years; range, 18-36 years). The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (range, 24-65 months), and there were no age or sex differences between the groups. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary mechanism of injury in the anterior cohort was a formal dislocation event (82.5% [85/103], of which 46% [39/85] required reduction by a medical provider), followed by shoulder subluxation (12%, 12/103), and “other” (6%, 6/103; no forceful injury). No primary identifiable mechanism of injury was found in the posterior cohort for 78% (75/97) of patients; lifting and pressing (11%, 11/97) and contact injuries (10% [all football blocking], 10/97) were the common mechanisms that initiated symptoms. Only 10 patients (10.3%) in the posterior cohort sustained a dislocation. The most common complaints for patients with anterior instability were joint instability (80%) and pain with activities (32%). In the posterior cohort, the most common complaint was pain (90.7%); only 13.4% in this cohort reported instability as the primary complaint. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization were significantly improved in both groups, but the anterior cohort had significantly better outcomes in all scores measured: ASES (preoperative: anterior 58.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 94.2 vs posterior 87.7, P < .005), SANE (preoperative: anterior 50.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 92.9 vs posterior 84.9, P < .005), and WOSI (preoperative: anterior 55.95, posterior 60.95; postoperative: anterior 92% of normal vs posterior 84%, P < .005). Conclusion: This study outlines clear distinctions between anterior and posterior shoulder instability in terms of presentation and clinical findings. Patients with anterior instability present primarily with an identifiable mechanism of injury and complaints of instability, whereas most patients with classic posterior instability have no identifiable mechanism of injury and their primary symptom is pain. Anterior instability outcomes in this matched cohort were superior in all domains versus posterior instability after arthroscopic stabilization, which further highlights the differences between anterior and posterior instability.

Background:American football is a leading cause of sports-related injuries, with the knee, ankle, and shoulder most commonly involved.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology, characteristics, and imaging findings of ankle injuries in football players at the National Football League (NFL) Combine and determine the relationship to player position. We hypothesized that there would be a high relative incidence of ankle injuries in these players compared with other sports and that there would be a direct correlation between the incidence of ankle injuries and player position.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective chart review of data collected from NFL Combine participants between 2009 and 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, history, physical examination results, and imaging findings were reviewed.Results:Of 2285 players, 1216 (53.2%) had a history of ankle injuries; of these, 987 (81.2%) had unilateral injuries, while 229 (18.8%) had bilateral injuries (total of 1445 ankles injured). This included 1242 ankle sprains (86.0% of ankle injuries): 417 (33.6% of sprains) high and 930 (74.9%) low. The most common soft tissue injuries were to the anterior talofibular ligament (n = 158, 12.7% of sprains) and syndesmosis (n = 137, 11.0%). Of all players at the NFL Combine with radiographs, 131 (10.9%) had evidence of an ankle fracture, all of which had healed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) identified 66 players (28.9% of players at the combine who underwent MRI) with articular cartilage injuries: 62 involving the talus and 16 involving the tibia. Furthermore, 85 players (37.3% of players with MRI) with tendon injuries were identified: 26 Achilles, 55 peroneal, 3 flexor hallucis longus, and 19 posterior tibial. A total of 611 players (50.6% of players with radiographs) had signs of arthrosis on radiography. Running backs (61.9%), offensive linemen (60.3%), and tight ends (59.4%) had the highest rates of ankle injuries by position, while kickers/punters (23.3%) and long snappers (37.5%) had the lowest.Conclusion:Prior ankle injuries were present in more than 50% of elite college football players attending the NFL Combine. The rate of these ankle injuries varied by player position: offensive linemen, running backs, and tight ends had the highest overall rates, while special teams players had the lowest. Additional prospective work is needed to determine the impact of prior injuries on future playing career.