BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing stability between single- and double-row arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques focused only on the measurements of tensile forces on the bony fragment without re-creating a more physiologic testing environment. PURPOSE: To compare dynamic stability and displacement between single- and double-row arthroscopic repair techniques for acute bony Bankart lesions in a concavity-compression cadaveric model simulating physiologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Testing was performed on 13 matched pairs of cadaveric glenoids with simulated bony Bankart fractures with a defect width of 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter. Half of the fractures were repaired with a double-row technique, and the contralateral glenoids were repaired with a single-row technique. To determine dynamic biomechanical stability and ultimate step-off of the repairs, a 150-N load and 2000 cycles of internal-external rotation at 1 Hz were applied to specimens to simulate early rehabilitation. Toggle was quantified throughout cycling with a coordinate measuring machine. Three-dimensional spatial measurements were calculated. After cyclic loading, the fracture displacement was measured. RESULTS: The bony Bankart fragment-glenoid initial step-off was found to be significantly greater (P < .001) for the single-row technique (mean, 896 µm; SD, 282 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 436 µm; SD, 313 µm). The motion toggle was found to be significantly greater (P = .017) for the single-row technique (mean, 994 µm; SD, 711 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 408 µm; SD, 384 µm). The ultimate interface displacement was found to be significantly greater (P = .029) for the single-row technique (mean, 1265 µm; SD, 606 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 795 µm; SD, 398 µm). CONCLUSION: Using a concavity-compression glenohumeral cadaveric model, we found that the double-row arthroscopic fixation technique for bony Bankart repair resulted in superior stability and decreased displacement during simulated rehabilitation when compared with the single-row repair technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings from this study may help guide surgical decision-making by demonstrating superior biomechanical properties (improved initial step-off, motion toggle, and interface displacement) of the double-row bony Bankart repair technique when compared with single-row fixation. The double-row repair construct demonstrated increased stability of the bony Bankart fragment, which may improve bony Bankart healing.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing stability between single- and double-row arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques focused only on the measurements of tensile forces on the bony fragment without re-creating a more physiologic testing environment. PURPOSE: To compare dynamic stability and displacement between single- and double-row arthroscopic repair techniques for acute bony Bankart lesions in a concavity-compression cadaveric model simulating physiologic conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Testing was performed on 13 matched pairs of cadaveric glenoids with simulated bony Bankart fractures with a defect width of 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter. Half of the fractures were repaired with a double-row technique, and the contralateral glenoids were repaired with a single-row technique. To determine dynamic biomechanical stability and ultimate step-off of the repairs, a 150-N load and 2000 cycles of internal-external rotation at 1 Hz were applied to specimens to simulate early rehabilitation. Toggle was quantified throughout cycling with a coordinate measuring machine. Three-dimensional spatial measurements were calculated. After cyclic loading, the fracture displacement was measured. RESULTS: The bony Bankart fragment-glenoid initial step-off was found to be significantly greater (P < .001) for the single-row technique (mean, 896 µm; SD, 282 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 436 µm; SD, 313 µm). The motion toggle was found to be significantly greater (P = .017) for the single-row technique (mean, 994 µm; SD, 711 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 408 µm; SD, 384 µm). The ultimate interface displacement was found to be significantly greater (P = .029) for the single-row technique (mean, 1265 µm; SD, 606 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 795 µm; SD, 398 µm). CONCLUSION: Using a concavity-compression glenohumeral cadaveric model, we found that the double-row arthroscopic fixation technique for bony Bankart repair resulted in superior stability and decreased displacement during simulated rehabilitation when compared with the single-row repair technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings from this study may help guide surgical decision-making by demonstrating superior biomechanical properties (improved initial step-off, motion toggle, and interface displacement) of the double-row bony Bankart repair technique when compared with single-row fixation. The double-row repair construct demonstrated increased stability of the bony Bankart fragment, which may improve bony Bankart healing.