Outcomes After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

Hong, Ian S.; Sonnenfeld, Julian J.; Sicat, Chelsea Sue; Hong, Robin S; Trofa, David P.; Schiffern, Shadley C.; Hamid, Nady; Fleischli, James E.; Saltzman, Bryan M.

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.03.030

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors have recommended that the Latarjet procedure should be considered for the treatment of failed Bankart repair, owing to the low redislocation rates and good functional outcomes [8, 14, 41, 45]. However, the reported high complication rate in the Latarjet procedure is a concern for surgeons [9, 27]; thus, other authors recommend performing revision Bankart repair for patients with recurrent instability without critical bone loss [19, 20, 52].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lho

Lee

et al. 2023

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the clinical results of revision Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair. MethodsA literature search was performed in databases, such as Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non‐randomized Studies tool. Studies for failed Bankart repair with revision Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure were included. The pain VAS, ROWE score, rate of return to sports and preinjury level of sports, recurrent instability, range of motion, and complications were compared. Additionally, the pain VAS, ROWE score, forward flexion, and external rotation at side were subjected to a meta‐analysis. ResultsTwenty‐four articles were included in the systematic review. The functional outcomes in terms of the ROWE score, recurrent instability, return to sports, and the preinjury level of sports was better in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (ROWE score, 91 vs. 86.7; recurrent instability rate, 3.5% vs. 14.4%; return to sports rate, 100% vs. 87.9%; return to preinjury level of sports rate, 89.9% vs. 74.9%; all P < 0.001). However, the results of postoperative pain and the postoperative limitation of external rotation at side were worse in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (pain VAS, 1.4 vs. 0.8; postoperative external rotation at side, 38° vs. 60°; all P < 0.001). In addition, the majority of the complications occurred in the Latarjet procedure group. In the meta‐analysis, the postoperative ROWE score was significantly higher in the Latarjet procedure group than that in the revision Bankart group (revision Bankart repair: 95% CI 88.9–80.9, I2 = 65.70; Latarjet procedure: 95% CI 95.8–88.1, I2 = 93.37; P = 0.014). However, the pain VAS, forward flexion, and external rotation at side did not reach the significant level in the meta‐analysis. ConclusionCompared with revision Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair showed better ROWE scores, stability, and return to sports or preinjury level of sports; however, the postoperative pain and the limitation of external rotation at side were worse with more complications. IRB NoKUMC 2022–01‐024. Level of evidenceLevel IV.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lho

Lee

et al. 2023

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10,11 In addition, various authors have reported suboptimal results in patients undergoing revision surgery after a previous failed procedure. 10,11,28…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 A recurrence would indicate not only the failure of treatment but also facing a new procedure and undergoing anesthesia, several months out of competition, and a long rehabilitation time. 10,11 In addition, various authors have reported suboptimal results in patients undergoing revision surgery after a previous failed procedure. 10,11,28 An alternative that could be considered in the face of unfavorable long-term results with Bankart repair is bone reconstruction with the Latarjet procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10,11 In addition, various authors have reported suboptimal results in patients undergoing revision surgery after a previous failed procedure. 10,11,28 An alternative that could be considered in the face of unfavorable long-term results with Bankart repair is bone reconstruction with the Latarjet procedure. A recent systematic review conducted by Hurley et al 12 evaluating long-term outcomes of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability reported an 8.5% recurrent instability rate at a mean follow-up of 17 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…29 This is because in a young athletic patient, recurrent instability usually necessitates further surgery, prolonged rehabilitation, and several months out of competition. 10,11 Although the risk factors for a recurrence after Bankart repair have been intensively investigated in recent years, there is very little information on the evolution of this complication over time. There is a great discrepancy between the rates of recurrences reported in different studies in relation to the follow-up time, which varies between 2% and 10% 17,23 in short-term studies and from 18% to 41% in studies with a long-term follow-up.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A 2-Year Follow-up May Not be Enough to Accurately Evaluate Recurrences After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Long-term Assessment of 272 Patients With a Mean Follow-up of 10.5 Years

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a great discrepancy between the rates of recurrent instability reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair in relation to the follow-up time. Purpose: To analyze the rate of recurrences after arthroscopic Bankart repair in the long term, emphasizing whether a minimum follow-up of 2 years is adequate to assess this outcome. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Between January 2008 and April 2013, a total of 356 athletes underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior glenohumeral instability at our institution. Return to sports, the Rowe score, the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. We analyzed the proportion of recurrences before and after 4 years of follow-up. Additionally, we performed a Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate recurrence-free time in patients with a recurrence. Results: The mean follow-up was 10.5 ± 1.6 years, and the mean age was 20.8 ± 3.9 years. In total, 90% of patients were able to return to sports; of these, 91% returned to their preinjury level of play. The Rowe, SSV, and ASOSS scores showed a statistical improvement after surgery ( P < .01). The proportion of patients with a recurrence during the follow-up period was 25% (95% CI, 20%-31%; n = 70), and the mean time until a recurrence was 3.8 ± 2.6 years. Only 39% of the recurrences (95% CI, 30%-48%) occurred in the first 2 years after surgery, while 61% (95% CI, 50%-73%) occurred in the first 4 years after surgery. Conclusion: In our study, the effectiveness of Bankart repair to stabilize the shoulder decreased significantly over time. Indeed, less than half of the recurrences occurred after 2 years of follow-up. Therefore, we propose that the recommended minimum follow-up should be 4 years; otherwise, it is very likely that the actual rate of recurrences will be significantly underestimated.

show abstract

The History and Evolution of the Open Labral Repair with Capsular Shift for Shoulder Instability

Inclan,

Rodeo

2024

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

Cited by 6 publications

References 43 publications

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A 2-Year Follow-up May Not be Enough to Accurately Evaluate Recurrences After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Long-term Assessment of 272 Patients With a Mean Follow-up of 10.5 Years

The History and Evolution of the Open Labral Repair with Capsular Shift for Shoulder Instability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About