Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj, Seaher Sakha, Tushar Tejpal, Timothy Leroux, Jacob M Kirsch, Moin Khan
{"title":"Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj,&nbsp;Seaher Sakha,&nbsp;Tushar Tejpal,&nbsp;Timothy Leroux,&nbsp;Jacob M Kirsch,&nbsp;Moin Khan","doi":"10.1177/15563316211030606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":253125,"journal":{"name":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"145-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15563316211030606","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316211030606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation.

Purpose: We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

Results: Twelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).

Conclusion: With significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

关节镜下Bankart修复失败后肩关节前不稳定与首次Bankart修复失败率相当:一项系统综述。
背景:关节镜Bankart修复术后复发性不稳定的处理仍然具有挑战性。在各种治疗选择中,由于病理可视化的改善以及关节镜技术和器械的进步,关节镜翻修修复越来越受到关注。目的:我们试图评估关节镜下软组织稳定治疗前肩不稳失败后接受关节镜下Bankart修复的适应症、技术、结果和并发症。方法:我们对通过Medline、Embase和PubMed检索确定的研究进行了系统综述。我们的搜索范围是从数据开始到2020年4月29日。结果包括临床结果、并发症和翻修率。采用非随机研究方法学指数(Methodological Index for non -random Studies,未成年人)评价研究质量。数据以描述性的方式呈现。结果:12项研究纳入279例患者(281个肩关节),平均年龄26.1±3.8岁,平均随访55.7±24.3个月。患者术后预后(如疼痛和功能)均有改善。总并发症发生率为29.5%,最常见的是复发性不稳定(19.9%)。结论:术后有明显改善,复发不稳定率相当,在关节镜下Bankart修复盂骨丢失小于20%的情况下有潜在的应用价值。临床医生应考虑患者病史和影像学表现,以确定是否需要更严格的稳定手术。为了确定更准确的失败率,需要长期随访和改进文献的大型前瞻性队列研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书