BACKGROUND: Revision arthroscopic posterior glenohumeral stabilization requires a thorough understanding of the static and dynamic stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint. The evaluation of these patients is complex but critical given the variety of possible underlying lesions. METHOD: We reviewed the literature surrounding recurrent and revision posterior instability biomechanics, etiology, evaluation, treatment, and outcomes. We also reviewed our own database of posterior instability cases and isolated revision procedures to review our own outcomes and to highlight overall concepts. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Although other authors have argued that performing a revision procedure indicates for an open procedure and osseous augmentation, our experience has been that revision posterior stabilization arthroscopic soft-tissue repair alone may be indicated in selected patients. After identification of posterior glenoid bone loss/effective retroversion and mechanical failure of prior repairs, the majority of the patients with recurrence of posterior instability likely have either recurrent or persistent labral pathology or patulous capsules with occult multi-directional instability primarily manifesting in the posterior direction. These patients are best served with capsular shift, reefing, and plication, often requiring 180-270° repair and 4 or greater suture anchors. Because of significant heterogeneity in the clinical outcomes reported to date further research will be necessary to define the clinical outcomes in revision posterior stabilization. Published by Mosby, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Revision arthroscopic posterior glenohumeral stabilization requires a thorough understanding of the static and dynamic stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint. The evaluation of these patients is complex but critical given the variety of possible underlying lesions. METHOD: We reviewed the literature surrounding recurrent and revision posterior instability biomechanics, etiology, evaluation, treatment, and outcomes. We also reviewed our own database of posterior instability cases and isolated revision procedures to review our own outcomes and to highlight overall concepts. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Although other authors have argued that performing a revision procedure indicates for an open procedure and osseous augmentation, our experience has been that revision posterior stabilization arthroscopic soft-tissue repair alone may be indicated in selected patients. After identification of posterior glenoid bone loss/effective retroversion and mechanical failure of prior repairs, the majority of the patients with recurrence of posterior instability likely have either recurrent or persistent labral pathology or patulous capsules with occult multi-directional instability primarily manifesting in the posterior direction. These patients are best served with capsular shift, reefing, and plication, often requiring 180-270° repair and 4 or greater suture anchors. Because of significant heterogeneity in the clinical outcomes reported to date further research will be necessary to define the clinical outcomes in revision posterior stabilization. Published by Mosby, Inc.