PURPOSE: Failed anterior shoulder stabilization procedures have traditionally been treated with open procedures. Recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have allowed for certain failed stabilization procedures to be treated by arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles on revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Key words included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 16 studies comprising 349 patients. All studies were retrospective (1 Level II study and 15 Level IV studies). The mean incidence of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 12.7%, and the mean follow-up period was 35.4 months. The most common cause for failure of the primary surgeries was a traumatic injury (62.1%), and 85.1% of patients returned to playing sports. The reasons for failure of revision cases included glenohumeral bone loss, hyperlaxity, and return to contact sports. CONCLUSIONS: With proper patient selection, the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair appear similar to those of revision open Bankart repair. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.
PURPOSE: Failed anterior shoulder stabilization procedures have traditionally been treated with open procedures. Recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have allowed for certain failed stabilization procedures to be treated by arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles on revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Key words included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 16 studies comprising 349 patients. All studies were retrospective (1 Level II study and 15 Level IV studies). The mean incidence of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 12.7%, and the mean follow-up period was 35.4 months. The most common cause for failure of the primary surgeries was a traumatic injury (62.1%), and 85.1% of patients returned to playing sports. The reasons for failure of revision cases included glenohumeral bone loss, hyperlaxity, and return to contact sports. CONCLUSIONS: With proper patient selection, the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair appear similar to those of revision open Bankart repair. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.
Authors: Johannes E Plath; Tim Saier; Matthias J Feucht; Philipp Minzlaff; Gernot Seppel; Sepp Braun; Daniel Hatch; Andreas B Imhoff Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Steffen Löw; Christian K Spies; Frank Unglaub; Jörg van Schoonhoven; Karl-Josef Prommersberger; Marion Mühldorfer-Fodor Journal: J Wrist Surg Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Eoghan T Hurley; Christopher A Colasanti; Nathan A Lorentz; Bogdan A Matache; Kirk A Campbell; Laith M Jazrawi; Robert J Meislin Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-18
Authors: Natalie C Rollick; Yohei Ono; Hafeez M Kurji; Atiba A Nelson; Richard S Boorman; Gail M Thornton; Ian Ky Lo Journal: Open Access J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-15