Postoperative Management Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review

Kim, Katie; Saper, Michael G.

doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2020.05.016

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 5 , 6 , 8 As such, rehabilitation following an ABR has been a topic of investigation in recent years. 5 , 6 , 9 Currently, there is a consensus guideline attempt by the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists (ASSET) and several rehabilitation protocols available in the literature. Moreover, a recently published international consensus via a modified Delphi process also remarked the importance of following a rehabilitation process.…”

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 , 6 , 8–10 Therefore, wide variability exists across the professional literature concerning the key elements of rehabilitation after an ABR. 5 , 6 , 9 …”

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 10 However, it only provides recommendations rather than an evidence-based protocol. 9 Additionally, it is unclear if this guideline results in better outcomes than standard care, as only one non-randomized controlled study reported no differences in shoulder-related physical function and quality of life between the two postoperative therapies. 11 Just as importantly, substantive discrepancies were noted between the ASSET consensus recommendations and available protocols for rehabilitation after an ABR.…”

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is insufficient data regarding which form of immobilization is superior and which position the shoulder should be immobilized in. 6 , 9 Moreover, regarding the length of immobilization, while some rehabilitation protocols recommend an early period of absolute immobilization, some studies have evaluated an accelerated rehabilitation protocol reporting excellent results. 12–14 For instance, in a prospective randomized clinical study, the group who received an accelerated range of motion protocol returned faster to functional ROM and activities.…”

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors That Influence the Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Glenohumeral Instability

Rossi

Pasqualini

Tanoira

et al. 2022

OAJSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have reported high rates of return to sports following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) However, there is enormous controversy regarding the optimal management of these patients in the postoperative period. Controversy issues include rehabilitation, criteria for returning to sports, and the specific management of each athlete according to the sport they practice. Even though there are several rehabilitation protocols published in the literature, wide variability exists concerning the key elements of rehabilitation after an ABR. Regarding criteria for return to sports, there is a wide variation across the different published studies. The type of sports has been shown to affect an athlete’s decision to return to sports. Nevertheless, most research is evaluated by classifications that cluster different sports into categories that may have other influences in return to sports when analyzed separately. Finally, in addition to physical readiness, the athlete’s psychological state is crucial for returning to sports. However, the contribution of psychological readiness to an athlete’s return to sports after shoulder instability surgery remains uncertain and unexplored.

show abstract

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 5 , 6 , 8–10 Therefore, wide variability exists across the professional literature concerning the key elements of rehabilitation after an ABR. 5 , 6 , 9 …”

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors That Influence the Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Glenohumeral Instability

Rossi

Pasqualini

Tanoira

et al. 2022

OAJSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training of the active and dynamic stabilizers of the shoulder girdle is important. Throwing and contact sports can be taken up again at the earliest six months postoperatively, if power and coordination are fully restored [18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Postoperative Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using a Lasso-Loop Stitch

Konrads¹,

Döbele²

2022

Arthroscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anterior inferior shoulder dislocation is a common injury. After primary traumatic shoulder dislocation and conservative treatment, the risk of re-dislocation is very high in patients younger than 35 years. With age, the risk of re-dislocation after traumatic shoulder dislocation and conservative treatment decreases. Surgical treatment via either open or arthroscopic stabilization minimizes the risk of re-dislocation. Today, anterior shoulder stabilization by arthroscopic refixation of the labroligamentous complex with suture anchors is a standard procedure, if there is no severe chronic bony defect at the glenoid site. Lafosse et al. described the so-called „Lasso-loop stitch“. This technique allows for positioning of the knot away from the joint and at the same time it establishes a labral bump that stabilizes the humeral head against (sub)luxation. The surgical principle and aim consist of refixation of the anterior labrum-capsule-ligament complex to the glenoid with positioning of the knot at distance to the joint as well as bulging up the labrum. This stabilizes the shoulder joint and therefore avoids further dislocations and associated pathologies. The aim of this work is to give an illustrated instruction of the surgical technique of arthroscopic Bankart repair using the lasso-loop stitch.

show abstract

Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Kim,

et al. 2024

Am J Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Quantitative analysis of the glenoid face knotless-type anchor placement for arthroscopic Bankart repair has not been reported. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using knotless bioabsorbable anchors depending on the anchor location. Study design: Case series, Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 124 patients (113 men and 11 women; age, 25.6 ± 7.5 years; follow-up time, 46.5 ± 18.2 months [range, 6.2-75.5 months]) who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with the bioabsorbable knotless anchor between 2017 and 2021 were included in this study. Among them, 118 patients were observed for >2 years (mean, 48.2 ± 16.8 months [range, 24-75.5 months]) and were analyzed for final clinical and radiologic outcomes. Using postoperative 6-month magnetic resonance imaging, remnant glenoid (%) and labral height were measured. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), radiographic osteoarthritic change, dislocation, apprehension test, and return to sports were recorded. Three groups were established based on the remnant glenoid, which represented the percentage of the exposed glenoid anteroposterior diameter to the original diameter using the best-fit circle method—group A: lower quartile; group B: interquartile; and group C: upper quartile—and variables were analyzed. Results: Overall, the remnant glenoid was 57% ± 6.4% (range, 41.5%-75%) after the surgery. Osteoarthritic change, dislocations, and positive apprehension tests were observed in 5 (4.2%), 4 (3.4%), and 12 (10.2%) patients, respectively. A total of 34 (28.8%) and 64 (54.2%) patients could return to sports without and with restrictions, respectively. Comparing groups A, B, and C, postoperative labral height (7 ± 1, 7 ± 2, and 7 ± 1 mm; P = .623), final osteoarthritic change (1, 4, and 0; P = .440), positive apprehension tests (5, 5, and 2; P = .387), and return to sports (complete/restricted/unable, 6/18/5, 19/29/11, 9/17/4; P = .769) were not different. All ROM were similar across the groups (all P > .054), except for external rotation (ER) at postoperative 6 months (41.3°± 12.8°; 50.2°± 18.5°; and 49.8°± 15.2°; P = .050). However, ER after 1 year was similar across the groups (all P > .544). In further analysis, patients with positive apprehension tests had lower labral height compared with others (5 [4-6] mm and 7 [6-8] mm; P < .001). Conclusion: In arthroscopic Bankart repair, the placement of knotless bioabsorbable anchors on the glenoid face, combined with the remplissage procedure or rotator interval closure, resulted in a low recurrence rate and moderate return to sports. However, most patients had some restrictions in returning to sports. Moreover, this technique was not associated with postoperative arthritis and shoulder stiffness, including ER deficit, which was not affected by the position of the anchor on the glenoid face for a minimum 2-year follow-up.

show abstract

Postoperative Management Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review

Cited by 4 publications

References 39 publications

Factors That Influence the Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Glenohumeral Instability

Factors That Influence the Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Glenohumeral Instability

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Using a Lasso-Loop Stitch

Knotless Bioabsorbable Anchors Placed on the Glenoid Face for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About