Borderline Glenoid Bone Defect in Anterior Shoulder Instability: Latarjet Procedure Versus Bankart Repair

Jeon, Young-Chan; Jeong, Ho Yeon; Lee, Dong Ki; Rhee, Yong Girl

doi:10.1177/0363546518776978

Cited by 60 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thank you for citing the studies regarding no difference in outcome between arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet in terms of rate of RTS. 5,6,18,30 Depending on how the data are interpreted, our study does not disagree with these results. We showed that of the athletes who were able to RTS, 91.5% of those receiving arthroscopic Bankart and 90% of those receiving open Latarjet returned to preinjury levels (Table 6), which is not significantly different.…”

supporting

confidence: 46%

Return to Sport After Surgical Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review: Response

Abdul-Rassoul¹,

Galvin²,

Curry³

et al. 2019

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 46%

Return to Sport After Surgical Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review: Response

Abdul-Rassoul¹,

Galvin²,

Curry³

et al. 2019

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…11 Several studies have defined subcritical glenoid bone loss and examined the impact of outcomes after isolated labral repair in patients with subcritical bone loss. 10,15,19 Shaha and colleagues 24 reported that 13.5% glenoid bone loss was associated with poor outcomes in patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic labral repair. They measured bone loss using magnetic resonance imaging with the perfect circle technique described by Harmsen and Huijsmans, 13 and patients were divided into quartiles based on the percentage of bone loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Comparison of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Versus Conjoint Tendon Transfer in a Bone Loss Shoulder Instability Model

Bokshan

Gil

DeFroda

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Augmentation of Bankart repair with long head of the biceps tendon transfer has been previously described, although there is a paucity of literature describing its biomechanical effects.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of augmenting Bankart repair with either the conjoint tendon or the long head of the biceps tendon, both with and without subcritical (13%) glenoid bone loss. We hypothesized that, in a cadaveric model, augmenting Bankart repair with the long head of the biceps tendon would restore a greater degree of stability compared with augmenting Bankart repair with the conjoint tendon.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:A total of 12 cadaveric shoulders were tested on a 6-degrees-of-freedom robotic musculoskeletal simulator to measure the peak resistance force due to an anterior displacement of 1 cm. The rotator cuff muscles were loaded during testing to simulate physiological conditions. The following test conditions were used for each specimen: (1) intact shoulder, (2) Bankart lesion with 13% anterior bone loss, (3) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair (anchors placed at the 3-, 4-, and 5-o’clock positions), (4) 13% bone loss with both Bankart repair and transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon, and (5) 13% bone loss with Bankart repair and transfer of the conjoint tendon.Results:Labral repair with the addition of long head of the biceps tendon transfer had the greatest peak resistance force to anterior displacement among all groups (54.1 ± 5.5 N) and was significantly stronger than both standard Bankart repair by 16.3% (46.5 ± 7.6 N; P = .039) and the conjoint transfer procedure by 16.6% (46.4 ± 7.7 N; P = .008).Conclusion:Given the susceptibility of recurrent instability in shoulders with subcritical bone loss after isolated labral repair, it is important to consider augmenting Bankart repair in high-risk patients to avoid potential recurrence and the need for reoperations. Transferring the long head of the biceps tendon to the anterior glenoid represents one possible augmentation.Clinical Relevance:We present biomechanical data for a relatively novel technique for augmenting capsulolabral repair strength in an anterior instability model with subcritical bone loss. These data represent biomechanical justification for the utilization of this relatively novel technique.

show abstract

“…38 Although a 2018 systematic review by Adam et al 2 reported an average recurrence rate of 13.7% after arthroscopic Bankart repair and a revision rate of 7.1%, rates of recurrence are highly variable, with reported rates ranging from 2% 25,28,34 to 40%. 31,84…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of Reporting Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Call for a Standardized Study Design

Kennedy

Murphy

Dornan

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: High recurrence rates have been reported after anterior shoulder dislocations, regardless of the treatment utilized. However, the definition of recurrent instability has been inconsistent, making a comparison between studies difficult. Purpose: To report on the nature with which the rate of recurrent instability is reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair, across all levels of evidence, and to analyze factors that may affect the reported rate of recurrence. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published within the dates of January 2008 and September 2018. Studies in English that reported on the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were considered for inclusion in this review. A meta-regression was performed to test for a linear association between the reported recurrence rate and several continuous covariates, including mean age at surgery, mean length of follow-up, attrition rate (loss to follow-up percentage), and percentage of male patients. Results: A trim-and-fill meta-analysis yielded an estimated overall recurrence rate of 17.4% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.9%). There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the level of evidence (Q(3) = 10.98; P = .012). Significant associations were found with the recurrence rate through the meta-regression, including a negative association with mean age ( P = .009), a positive association with mean follow-up time ( P = .002), and a positive association with attrition rate ( P = .035). Conclusion: A call for standardization is necessary for reporting outcomes of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, especially with regard to the reporting of recurrence/failure rates, with careful consideration of the effects that may occur from patient demographics and study design. With no current recommendations for deeming failure, we suggest that all forms of instability be accounted for when determining a failed treatment procedure, with future studies placing an emphasis on greater control of the study design.

show abstract

Borderline Glenoid Bone Defect in Anterior Shoulder Instability: Latarjet Procedure Versus Bankart Repair

Cited by 60 publications

References 34 publications

Return to Sport After Surgical Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review: Response

Return to Sport After Surgical Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review: Response

Biomechanical Comparison of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon Versus Conjoint Tendon Transfer in a Bone Loss Shoulder Instability Model

Variability of Reporting Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Call for a Standardized Study Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About