Purpose To evaluate the eicacy of the Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS) in predicting an increased recurrence risk after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. Methods Retrospective review of a cohort of patients operated in three diferent centres. The inclusion criteria (recurrent anterior instability [dislocation or subluxation] with or without hyperlaxity, arthroscopic Bankart repair) and the exclusion criteria (concomitant rotator cuf lesion, acute irst-time dislocation, surgery after a previous anterior stabilization, surgery for an unstable shoulder without true dislocation or subluxation; multidirectional instability) were those used in the study that deined the ISIS score. The medical records and a telephone interview were used to identify the six variables that deine the ISIS and identify recurrences. Results One hundred and sixty-three shoulders met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 140 subjects (22 females/118 males; mean age 35.5 ± 7.9) with 142 (89.0%) shoulders were available for follow-up after 5.3 (1.1) (range 3.1-7.4) years. There were 20 recurrences (14.1%). The mean (SD) preoperative ISIS was 1.8 (1.6) in the patients without recurrence and 1.8 (1.9) in the patients with recurrence (n.s.). In the 117 subjects with ISIS between 0 and 3 the recurrence rate was 12.8%; in the 25 with ISIS 4 to 6 the rate was 20% (n.s.). Conclusion For subjects with anterior shoulder instability in which an arthroscopic Bankart repair is being considered, the use of the ISIS, when the values obtained are ≤ 6 was not useful to predict an increased recurrence risk in the midterm in this retrospectively evaluated case series. The eicacy of the ISIS score in deining a group of subjects with a preoperative increased risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart instability repair is limited in lower risk populations (with ISIS scores ≤ 6). Level of evidence Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Background:The treatment of multidirectional instability of the shoulder is complex. The surgeon should have a clear understanding of the role of hiperlaxity, anatomical variations, muscle misbalance and possible traumatic incidents in each patient.Methods:A review of the relevant literature was performed including indexed journals in English and Spanish. The review was focused in both surgical and conservative management of multidirectional shoulder instability.Results:Most patients with multidirectional instability will be best served with a period of conservative management with physical therapy; this should focus in restoring strength and balance of the dynamic stabilizers of the shoulder. The presence of a significant traumatic incident, anatomic alterations and psychological problems are widely considered to be poor prognostic factors for conservative treatment. Patients who do not show a favorable response after 3 months of conservative treatment seem to get no benefit from further physical therapy.When conservative treatment fails, a surgical intervention is warranted. Both open capsular shift and arthroscopic capsular plication are considered to be the treatment of choice in these patients and have similar outcomes. Thermal or laser capsuloraphy is no longer recommended.Conclusion:Multidirectional instability is a complex problem. Conservative management with focus on strengthening and balancing of the dynamic shoulder stabilizers is the first alternative. Some patients will fare poorly and require either open or arthroscopic capsular plication.

Retrospective case series, level IV.

Background:Multidirectional instability (MDI) represents a great challenge to the orthopedic surgeon. When treating these patients we must be aware that instability refers to a symptomatic situation, thus multidirectional instability is defined as symptomatic involuntary instability in two or more directions, and should be clearly differentiated from asymptomatic hyperlaxity.It may be associated with hyperlaxity, either congenital or acquired following repetitive stress, but also may be present without hyperlaxity, which is rare.Methods:We searched in the online data bases and reviewed the relevant published literature available.Results:Many differences can be seen in the current literature when identifying these patients, unclear definitions and criteria to be included in this patient group are common.Conclusion:Understanding the complex shoulder biomechanics as well as being aware of the typical clinical features and the key examination signs, which we review in this article, is of paramount importance in order to identify and classify these patients, allowing the best treatment option to be offered to each patient.

No abstract