PURPOSE: Morphological changes after repair of the glenoid labrum were examined using fresh cadavers and clinical cases to compare the anchor and Caspari methods. TYPE OF STUDY: Cadaveric and case series. METHODS: The depth of the glenoid concavity after Bankart repair was measured in 4 shoulders from 2 fresh cadavers. We made positive models of the glenoid cavity with gypsum and measured the distance from the lateral-most extent of the anterior labrum to the medial extent of the glenoid cavity. We also compared the depth of glenoid concavity in clinical cases between the anchor and Caspari methods using air computed tomography arthrography and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: We determined the effective depth as the distance from the lateral-most extent of the anterior labrum to the medial extent of the glenoid cavity. The effective depth in fresh cadaver experiments after the anchor method showed substantial differences at the superior and middle levels of the glenoid labrum compared with the Caspari method. Mean effective depths in clinical cases were 5.8 mm (range, 4.2 to 6.8 mm) after the anchor method and 3.5 mm (range, 2.0 to 5.0 mm) after the Caspari method. Effective depth following the anchor method was significantly greater than that of the Caspari method. CONCLUSIONS: During repair of Bankart lesions for traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder, effective depth was higher following use of the anchor method than with the Caspari method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the shape of the anterior labrum and glenoid concavity after use of the anchor and Caspari methods may help to improve the surgical technique and clinical results of arthroscopic Bankart repair.
PURPOSE: Morphological changes after repair of the glenoid labrum were examined using fresh cadavers and clinical cases to compare the anchor and Caspari methods. TYPE OF STUDY: Cadaveric and case series. METHODS: The depth of the glenoid concavity after Bankart repair was measured in 4 shoulders from 2 fresh cadavers. We made positive models of the glenoid cavity with gypsum and measured the distance from the lateral-most extent of the anterior labrum to the medial extent of the glenoid cavity. We also compared the depth of glenoid concavity in clinical cases between the anchor and Caspari methods using air computed tomography arthrography and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: We determined the effective depth as the distance from the lateral-most extent of the anterior labrum to the medial extent of the glenoid cavity. The effective depth in fresh cadaver experiments after the anchor method showed substantial differences at the superior and middle levels of the glenoid labrum compared with the Caspari method. Mean effective depths in clinical cases were 5.8 mm (range, 4.2 to 6.8 mm) after the anchor method and 3.5 mm (range, 2.0 to 5.0 mm) after the Caspari method. Effective depth following the anchor method was significantly greater than that of the Caspari method. CONCLUSIONS: During repair of Bankart lesions for traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder, effective depth was higher following use of the anchor method than with the Caspari method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the shape of the anterior labrum and glenoid concavity after use of the anchor and Caspari methods may help to improve the surgical technique and clinical results of arthroscopic Bankart repair.