Ryan T Li1, Andrew Sheean2, Kevin Wilson3, Darren de Sa4, Gillian Kane5, Bryson Lesniak5, Albert Lin6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, WakeMed Health and Hospitals, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. 3. Orthopedic Surgery, Mount Nittany Health, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 4. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.. Electronic address: lina2@upmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether glenoid retroversion is an independent risk factor for failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. In part 1 of the study, individuals with no glenoid bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (cases) were compared with individuals who did not fail Bankart repair (controls). In part 2 of the study, cases with subcritical (<20%) glenoid bone loss as measured on sagittal T1 MRI sequences who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair were compared with controls who did not. For each part of the study, glenoid version was measured using axial T2 MRI sequences. Positive angular measurements were designated to represent glenoid anteversion, whereas negative measurements were designated to represent glenoid retroversion. Independent t tests were conducted to determine the association between glenoid version and failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: There were 20 cases and 40 controls in part 1 of the study. In part 2, there were 19 cases and 21 controls. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between cases and controls. Among individuals with no glenoid bone loss, there was no difference in glenoid version between cases and controls (cases: 6.0° ± 8.1° vs controls: 5.1° ± 7.8°, P = .22). Among individuals with subcritical bone loss, cases (3.8° ± 4.4°) were associated with significantly less mean retroversion compared with controls (7.1° ± 2.8°, P = .0085). Decreased retroversion (odds ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.72, P = 20) was a significant independent predictor of failure using univariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: While glenoid retroversion is not associated with failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair in individuals with no glenoid bone loss, decreased retroversion is associated with failure in individuals with subcritical bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Retrospective review.
PURPOSE: To determine whether glenoid retroversion is an independent risk factor for failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. In part 1 of the study, individuals with no glenoid bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (cases) were compared with individuals who did not fail Bankart repair (controls). In part 2 of the study, cases with subcritical (<20%) glenoid bone loss as measured on sagittal T1 MRI sequences who failed arthroscopic Bankart repair were compared with controls who did not. For each part of the study, glenoid version was measured using axial T2 MRI sequences. Positive angular measurements were designated to represent glenoid anteversion, whereas negative measurements were designated to represent glenoid retroversion. Independent t tests were conducted to determine the association between glenoid version and failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: There were 20 cases and 40 controls in part 1 of the study. In part 2, there were 19 cases and 21 controls. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between cases and controls. Among individuals with no glenoid bone loss, there was no difference in glenoid version between cases and controls (cases: 6.0° ± 8.1° vs controls: 5.1° ± 7.8°, P = .22). Among individuals with subcritical bone loss, cases (3.8° ± 4.4°) were associated with significantly less mean retroversion compared with controls (7.1° ± 2.8°, P = .0085). Decreased retroversion (odds ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.72, P = 20) was a significant independent predictor of failure using univariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: While glenoid retroversion is not associated with failure after arthroscopic Bankart repair in individuals with no glenoid bone loss, decreased retroversion is associated with failure in individuals with subcritical bone loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3: Retrospective review.
Authors: Jonathan D Hughes; Christopher M Gibbs; Anmol Almast; Akere Atte; Mikael Sansone; Jon Karlsson; Volker Musahl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.342