Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

High recurrence rates have been reported after anterior shoulder dislocations, regardless of the treatment utilized. However, the definition of recurrent instability has been inconsistent, making a comparison between studies difficult.

Purpose:

To report on the nature with which the rate of recurrent instability is reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair, across all levels of evidence, and to analyze factors that may affect the reported rate of recurrence.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published within the dates of January 2008 and September 2018. Studies in English that reported on the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were considered for inclusion in this review. A meta-regression was performed to test for a linear association between the reported recurrence rate and several continuous covariates, including mean age at surgery, mean length of follow-up, attrition rate (loss to follow-up percentage), and percentage of male patients.

Results:

A trim-and-fill meta-analysis yielded an estimated overall recurrence rate of 17.4% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.9%). There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the level of evidence (Q(3) = 10.98; P = .012). Significant associations were found with the recurrence rate through the meta-regression, including a negative association with mean age (P = .009), a positive association with mean follow-up time (P = .002), and a positive association with attrition rate (P = .035).

Conclusion:

A call for standardization is necessary for reporting outcomes of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, especially with regard to the reporting of recurrence/failure rates, with careful consideration of the effects that may occur from patient demographics and study design. With no current recommendations for deeming failure, we suggest that all forms of instability be accounted for when determining a failed treatment procedure, with future studies placing an emphasis on greater control of the study design.

Keywords

arthroscopic Bankart anterior shoulder instability recurrence failure dislocation

Anterior instability is the most commonly reported form of instability in the shoulder,⁴⁹ with a reported incidence of 1.7% in the general population.⁶² Patients with anterior shoulder instability undergoing nonoperative treatment have a high probability of recurrence, with reported rates between 47% and 94.5%.^5,9,26,35,37 Arthroscopic repair is more common, owing to superior patient-reported outcomes and range of motion postoperatively; however, lower recurrence rates are often reported with open approaches.³⁸ Although a 2018 systematic review by Adam et al² reported an average recurrence rate of 13.7% after arthroscopic Bankart repair and a revision rate of 7.1%, rates of recurrence are highly variable, with reported rates ranging from 2%^25,28,34 to 40%.^31,84

Various factors have been associated with an increased risk of recurrent instability after Bankart repair. These include the total number of instability events before surgery,^2,34,45 placement of anchors,⁵⁴ and concomitant injuries present at surgery.⁵³ Kasik and Saper³³ found a considerable variation in the means of reported clinical outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. The current definitions for recurrent shoulder instability are inconsistent, which may lead to variations in the reported rates of recurrence, contributing to misconceptions of expectations after the Bankart procedure for anterior instability. The criteria for recurrence after surgery have been defined by an assortment of indications, ranging from the exclusive occurrence of dislocations^4,16,57 to studies considering recurrence by additional means of instability, including dislocations or subluxations,^11,19,70 or further by the inclusion of apprehension or feelings of pain or instability.^47,61,68

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nature with which the rate of recurrent instability is reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair, across all levels of evidence (LOEs), and to analyze factors that may affect the reported rate of recurrence. It was hypothesized that recurrence rates would be affected by the inclusivity of criteria used for the recurrence definition, duration of follow-up, and quality of the study design.

Methods

Search Strategy

A systematic review in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines was performed.⁷³ Two investigators (M.I.K., C.M.) performed the search in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published within the dates of January 2008 and September 2018. The search terms used to identify potential studies for assessments specific to the intervention (arthroscopic Bankart) and instability (anterior shoulder instability) were individually entered to ensure that no studies were missed. Furthermore, studies demonstrating the potential for inclusion, identified from citations within text, were supplemented to the study query.

Study Eligibility

Studies in English that reported the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were considered for inclusion in this review. Studies of all LOEs (1-4) were assessed. Initial screening was performed by 2 investigators (M.I.K., C.M.) with the following exclusion criteria: duplicates, expert opinions, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and studies not exclusive to anterior instability (posterior or multidirectional instability). If studies failed to define the recurrence of instability, an attempt was made to contact the author; failure to contact resulted in study exclusion.

Data Extraction and Processing

The extraction of data was performed by 2 investigators (M.I.K., C.M.) into separate but identically formatted spreadsheets. The data points of interest consisted of the following: age at the time of surgery (years), follow-up duration (months), sex (% male), associated lesions, study design, number of patients included, attrition rate (% lost to follow-up), definition of recurrence, recurrence rate (% failure), dislocations, and subluxations. Data points were merged after the completion of data extraction.

Initial grouping was performed by allocating studies according to their definition of recurrence/failure after arthroscopic Bankart surgery, classifying studies by the criteria of recurrence that each study was most closely associated with: dislocation (exclusively), dislocation or subluxation, or any form of instability (dislocation, subluxation, positive apprehension, pain, etc). These groups were labeled as dislocation, dislocation/subluxation, and dislocation/subluxation/other, respectively. A subgroup analysis was performed to determine if any discrepancies in the recurrence rate were present across the studies in addition to study classification. A subgroup analysis was further performed across LOEs 1 through 4.

Quantitative Synthesis

To allow for generalizability of the results beyond the set of included studies, all meta-regressions and subgroup meta-analyses utilized mixed-effects models.³⁰ Residual heterogeneity was estimated using the DerSimonian-Laird method, reported using the I ² statistic and presented with 95% CIs. Meta-regression results were visualized by plotting fitted values along with 95% CIs across the range of observed covariate values. The evidence for publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, and symmetry was tested using the rank correlation test. As a sensitivity analysis, the trim-and-fill method was used to estimate the overall instability recurrence rate, adjusting for publication bias.

A meta-regression was performed to test for a linear association between the reported recurrence rate and several continuous covariates, including mean age at surgery, mean length of follow-up, attrition rate (percentage lost to follow-up), and percentage of male patients. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis was performed to test whether the recurrence rate differed by the definition of recurrence or by the LOE of the study. Model assumptions and fit were assessed via residual diagnostics. Statistical software R version 3.5.0 was used to produce all analyses and results figures (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, with additional packages meta, metafor, and ggplot2).^{30,67,75,78,81}

Evaluation of Study Quality

Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score.⁷¹ The following factors were used to assess validity: clearly stated aim, inclusion of consecutive patients, prospective collection of data, endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, loss of follow-up less than 5%, and prospective calculation of the study size. Furthermore, 4 additional items were assessed for comparative studies: adequate control group, contemporary groups, baseline equivalence of groups, and adequate statistical analyses.

Results

Study Characteristics

From the original query of 2614 studies, 52 met the inclusion criteria (Table 1), yielding a total of 3952 shoulders included for analyses. The mean age was 26.8 years, and the mean proportion of male patients was 79.1%. Among the 52 studies evaluated, there were 3 with level 1 evidence, 15 with level 2 evidence, 17 with level 3 evidence, and 17 with level 4 evidence (Appendix Figure A1). Five studies reported on 2 separate cohorts specific to the Bankart procedure, which were included separately from the pooled data; the studies (separate cohorts) were as follows: Godinho et al²⁷ (single-loading anchors and double-loading anchors), Kim et al³⁴ (primary dislocation group and recurrent dislocation group), Ozbaydar et al⁵³ (anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion lesion group and Bankart lesion group), Hantes et al²⁸ (anterior labral lesion group and superior labral lesion group), and Marshall et al⁴⁵ (first-time dislocation group and recurrent dislocation group). The meta-analysis therefore included 57 cohorts.

TABLE 1

Variable Reporting of the Definition of Instability ^a

Author (Year)	LOE	Definition of Instability	Lesions	Attrition ^b	Recurrence ^c
Recurrent Instability as Dislocation
Archetti Netto et al⁴ (2012)	2	Recurrent dislocation	B	26.1	11.8
Ee et al¹⁶ (2011)	2	Recurrence of shoulder instability by dislocation	B, HSL	7.6	8.2
Mahirogullari et al⁴¹ (2010)	2	Recurrent dislocation	na	na	5.9
Porcellini et al⁵⁷ (2009)	2	Subjective sense of subluxation or objective documentation of dislocation	B, ALPSA	8.8	8.1
Blonna et al⁸ (2016)	3	Recurrent dislocation	na	na	10.0
Kraus et al³⁶ (2015)	3	Shoulder dislocation	na	10.8	10.6
Saier et al⁶⁵ (2017)	3	Traumatic shoulder dislocation with consecutive apprehensiveness and time interval from initial dislocation to surgery of <6 wk	na	8.3	11.4
Szyluk et al⁷⁴ (2015)	3	Complications if they had occurred spontaneously after surgery; high-energy trauma regarded as sequela of a new injury	B, HSL, SLAP, HAGL	na	9.8
Aydin et al⁶ (2017)	4	Recurrent dislocation	na	7.3	7.9
Gerometta et al²⁵ (2016)	4	Recurrent dislocation	na	6.1	2.2
Plath et al⁵⁵ (2015)	4	Recurrence of dislocation	SLAP	39.4	21.0
Saper et al⁶⁶ (2017)	4	Instability event requiring manual reduction	SLAP, HSL	na	10.3
Stein et al⁷² (2011)	4	Recurrent dislocation	B	12.2	11.6
Yamamoto et al⁸² (2015)	4	Repeated anterior shoulder dislocations after an initial episode	B, ALPSA, GLAD	0.0	6.8
Zhu et al⁸³ (2015)	4	Recurrence of dislocation	na	28.0	33.3
Recurrent Instability as Dislocation and Subluxation
Elmlund et al¹⁹ (2009)	1	Patients with signs of subluxation who reported ≤1 dislocations or a minimum of 1 episode of “dead arm syndrome”	B	12.5	14.3
Shibata et al⁷⁰ (2014)	1	Experience of redislocation	HSL, SLAP, G	0.0	8.8
Bouliane et al¹¹ (2014)	2	Surgical: dislocation or significant subluxation requiring medical treatment; functional: failure to return to preinjury activity	B, HSL, SLAP	9.1	6.0
Elmlund et al¹⁷ (2008)	2	Dislocation; “experienced or had signs of subluxation” (ie, pain)	B	9.5	18.4
Flinkkila et al²⁰ (2010)	2	Recurrence defined as redislocation or subluxation (sense of dislocation, followed by immediate reduction)	B, HSL, SLAP	4.4	19.0
Hantes et al²⁸ (2009)	2	Redislocation or subluxation episode	B	na	2.6
			B, SLAP	na	4.0
Kalkar et al³² (2017)	2	Subjective feeling of subluxation or documented full dislocation	na	na	4.6
Kim et al³⁴ (2011)	2	Redislocation or subluxation episode	B, SLAP	na	2.4
			B, SLAP	na	2.9
Memon et al⁴⁶ (2018)	2	Dislocation or subluxation	SLAP, HSL	15.9	10.0
Owens et al⁵⁰ (2015)	2	Recurrence of dislocation or subluxation	B, SLAP	43.8	33.3
Uchiyama et al⁷⁶ (2017)	2	Redislocation and subluxation	B, SLAP, HSL	0.0	26.7
Antunes et al³ (2016)	3	At least 1 episode of anterior subluxation or dislocation of shoulder	B, HSL, SLAP	10.4	7.0
Bessiere et al⁷ (2014)	3	At least 1 episode of anterior dislocation or subluxation	B, HSL	5.1	21.5
Chechik et al¹³ (2010)	3	Dislocation or subluxation	B	16.4	21.7
Elmlund et al¹⁸ (2012)	3	Dislocation or subluxation (“dead arm syndrome”)	na	0.0	17.7
Lutzner et al⁴⁰ (2009)	3	Dislocation for any cause or subluxation	SLAP	2.5	23.1
Marshall et al⁴⁵ (2017)	3	Dislocation, subluxation, or feeling of apprehension/instability	B, HSL	32.8	29.4
Marshall et al⁴⁵ (2017)	3		B, HSL	26.4	62.3
Shah et al⁶⁹ (2018)	3	Subluxation or dislocation	B, HSL, SLAP, PASTA	na	3.8
Aboalata et al¹ (2017)	4	Dislocation that required reduction as well as subluxation when associated with clinical signs of instability	SLAP	20.6	18.2
Boughebri et al¹⁰ (2015)	4	Recurrence of anterior dislocation or subluxation	B, HSL, SLAP	23.7	8.9
Flinkkila et al²¹ (2018)	4	Dislocation or subluxation (verified by radiographs or typical history; ie, feeling of apprehension, subluxation, or dislocation)	G, HSL, SLAP	10.2	19.0
Franceschi et al²² (2011)	4	Patients with signs of subluxation who reported ≤1 frank dislocations or a minimum of 1 episode of “dead arm syndrome”	B	16.7	16.7
Owens et al⁵¹ (2009)	4	Recurrent dislocation (requiring manual reduction), subluxation, or revision surgery	na	18.4	37.5
Ozbaydar et al⁵³ (2008)	4	Dislocation; “subjective sense of subluxation”	B, SLAP, RCT, GBL, HSL	7.0	7.5
			SLAP, RCT, GBL, HSL, ALPSA	7.0	19.2
Recurrent Instability as Dislocation, Subluxation, Positive Apprehension, or Other
Robinson et al⁶¹ (2008)	1	Dislocation; symptoms of slipping or apprehension with positive apprehension and load-and-shift test results	B, SLAP, HSL, GBL	14.0	8.1
Mishra et al⁴⁷ (2012)	2	Recurrent shoulder dislocation; any sensation of subluxation or instability preventing a return to full activity or requiring a further stabilizing procedure	na	23.1	6.0
Sedeek et al⁶⁸ (2008)	2	Recurrent dislocation, symptomatic subluxation, or instability preventing a return to full activities	B, HSL	na	7.5
Cho et al¹⁴ (2016)	3	Positive apprehension sign, subluxation, or dislocation	HSL	na	25.7
Godinho et al²⁷ (2015)	3	Symptom of instability (insecurity, subluxation, dislocation)	G, HSL, SLAP	14.8	5.8
Godinho et al²⁷ (2015)	3		G, HSL, SLAP	14.8	7.7
Jeon et al³¹ (2018)	3	Presence of dislocation or subluxation or subjective instability with a positive apprehension test result	B	na	39.7
Park et al⁵⁴ (2018)	3	Recurrent anterior dislocation or subluxation or positive apprehension test result	B, SLAP	0.0	12.2
Virk et al⁷⁹ (2016)	3	Recurrence of dislocation, subluxation by history, or positive apprehension	B	10.8	12.1
Zimmermann et al⁸⁴ (2016)	3	Recurrence of instability by anterior apprehension, subluxation, or redislocation	na	9.4	41.7
Chapus et al¹² (2015)	4	Dislocation; sensation of subluxation	B, HAGL	4.8	35.0
Pogorzelski et al⁵⁶ (2018)	4	Clinical failure from recurrent instability defined by dislocation, subluxation, or positive apprehension	GLAD, SLAP	18.1	13.9
Privitera et al⁵⁸ (2012)	4	Dislocation, revision surgery, positive apprehension, and relocation sign with or without history of subluxation	B	37.5	35.0
Voos et al⁸⁰ (2010)	4	Recurrence of subluxation, dislocation, or significant apprehension	na	12.1	17.8

^a ALPSA, anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion; B, Bankart lesion; G, glenoid lesion; GBL, glenoid bone loss; GLAD, glenolabral articular disruption; HAGL, humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament; HSL, Hill-Sachs lesion; LOE, level of evidence; na, not available; PASTA, partial articular supraspinatus tendon avulsion; RCT, rotator cuff tear; SLAP, superior labral tear from anterior to posterior.

^b Percentage of patients who failed to complete the study.

^c Percentage of patients relative to the study population.

Meta-analysis

An unmoderated random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the rate of recurrent instability was 14.2% (95% CI, 11.5%-17.5%) across all studies. The rank correlation test found significant funnel plot asymmetry (tau = –0.244; P = .007), which was evidence for possible publication bias against smaller studies with relatively high recurrent instability rates (Figure 1). A trim-and-fill meta-analysis was then performed as a sensitivity analysis that aimed to account for publication bias, finding an estimated overall recurrence rate of 17.4% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.9%).

Figure 1.

Funnel plot for all studies (black circles), with additional imputed studies generated through the trim-and-fill method (white circles). Significant evidence for funnel plot asymmetry was found (P = .007), indicating possible publication bias.

Subgroup Analysis

The subgroup meta-analysis found no significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the recurrence definition. The following recurrence rates divided by group were reported: dislocation only (10.8% [95% CI, 8.1%-14.2%]; n = 15 cohorts); dislocation or subluxation (15.6% [95% CI, 11.8%-20.3%]; n = 28 cohorts); and dislocation, subluxation, apprehension, or other (16.5% [95% CI, 10.3%-25.4%]; n = 14 cohorts) (Q(2) = 4.29; P = .117) (Appendix Figure A2).

There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the LOE between groups: level 1 (10.0% [95% CI, 6.3%-15.5%]; n = 3 cohorts), level 2 (9.5% [95% CI, 6.6%-13.3%]; n = 17 cohorts), level 3 (17.1% [95% CI, 11.6%-24.5%]; n = 19 cohorts), and level 4 (17.5% [95% CI, 13.4%-22.5%]; n = 18 cohorts) (Q(3) = 10.98; P = .012).

Meta-regression

Significant associations were found with the recurrence rate through a meta-regression, including a negative association with mean age (estimate = –0.087 [95% CI, –0.153 to –0.022]; P = .009) (Figure 2), a positive association with mean follow-up time (estimate = 0.0084 [95% CI, 0.0030 to 0.0139]; P = .002) (Figure 3), and a positive association with attrition rate (estimate = 0.0280 [95% CI, 0.002 to 0.054]; P = .035) (Figure 4).

Figure 2.

A significant negative association was seen in a meta-regression analysis of the mean age of the study cohort and the reported recurrence rate (estimate = –0.087 [95% CI, –0.153 to –0.022]; P = .009).

Figure 3.

A meta-regression identified that the study’s mean follow-up time was significantly positively associated with the reported recurrence rate (estimate = 0.0084 [95% CI, 0.0030-0.0139]; P = .002).

Figure 4.

A meta-regression identified that the study’s attrition rate (percentage lost to follow-up) was significantly positively associated with the reported recurrence rate (estimate = 0.0280 [95% CI, 0.002-0.054]; P = .035).

Discussion

The most important finding of this review was that aspects of the study design of reviewed articles significantly altered the reported rates of recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. After accounting for publication bias, an overall recurrence rate was estimated at 17.4%. This was higher than that reported in the 2018 meta-analysis performed by Adam et al,² which reported an average failure rate of 13.7%. Recurrence rates were reported inconsistently depending on the definition of recurrence and were shown to be influenced by the factors of study quality and design. Decreased age, longer follow-up time, attrition rate, and LOE were all correlated with the rate of recurrence.

Patient age has been identified by previous studies to be a potential factor for an elevated risk of recurrence.^26,44,48,59 More specifically, 20 years of age has been deemed the critical point associated with an elevated risk of recurrence because patients younger than this age have a doubled chance of failure.^{15,52,57,60,64,77} Although our data do not represent a significant age group to validate this claim, using a meta-regression, significance was observed from the various pooled age ranges, resulting in a trend of elevated recurrence in accordance with younger age at the time of surgery (P = .009). Furthermore, both follow-up duration (P = .002) and attrition rate (P = .035) were positively correlated with elevated recurrence rates.

A significant variation and lack of consistency were observed in the reporting of postoperative outcomes. This was evident in disparities of reported recurrence rates across features of the study design, with the effects being multifactorial. The subgroup analyses found a significant difference between the various LOEs, with rates reported as 10.0% (level 1), 9.5% (level 2), 17.1% (level 3), and 17.5% (level 4) (P = .012). The higher rates of recurrence in studies of lower LOEs suggest an embellished reporting of recurrence rates in lower quality study designs.

Fifteen studies defined recurrence exclusively as dislocations and reported a 10.8% recurrence rate, 28 cohorts further included subluxations within the definition and reported a 15.6% recurrence rate, and 14 cohorts considered all forms of postoperative instability as failure and reported a 16.5% recurrence rate. Although a difference of at least 4.8% was observed between studies defining recurrence as dislocations and those including additional criteria, a statistical significance was not found across the various definitions used for recurrent instability (P = .117).

Our results highlight an issue within outcomes research in the current literature, raising concerns for a comparison of results across differing modalities and the resultant effect of pooling data for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.^{23,24,29,39,42,63} Lukenchuk et al³⁹ reported on the extensive variability in preferred outcome measures, in which 28 different tools are currently being used for tracking the postoperative phase of anterior shoulder instability. Kasik and Saper³³ likewise reported an inconsistency in outcome measurements in the adolescent population after arthroscopic Bankart repair. In our meta-analyses, we showed that multiple aspects of the study design and patient demographics can influence reported recurrence rates after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. Because of the potential for the manipulation of reporting, we believe that the definition of recurrence should be consistently reported as any means of failure, including dislocations, subluxations, feelings of apprehension, or unstable painful shoulders. This will not only clarify reporting across the literature by consistent means for recurrent failure, but it will also provide patients with consistent information as to the progression or potential classification of failure regarding the treatment of anterior shoulder instability after an injury.

Limitations

This meta-analysis was not absent of potential limitations. Meta-regression is susceptible to confounding among moderator variables, and significant correlation was observed among several of the continuous variables we assessed, including percentage of male patients and mean age as well as percentage of male patients and attrition rate. The possibility of aggregation bias (also known as Simpson's paradox), which can occur when covariates are inferred from study means rather than individual-level data, is also a limitation of our meta-regression analysis. An assessment of study quality by the MINORS tool found that only 8 studies were viable in scoring adequately in the category of attrition (being <5%); 12 failed to report attrition.

Conclusion

A call for standardization is necessary for reporting outcomes of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, with careful consideration of reporting recurrence/failure rates from effects that may occur from patient demographics and aspects of the study design, including attrition rate and duration of follow-up. With no current recommendations for deeming failure, we suggest that all forms of instability be accounted for when determining a failed treatment procedure, with future studies placing an emphasis on greater control of the study design.

Footnotes

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.F.L. has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and royalties from Smith & Nephew and educational support, consulting fees, speaking fees, and royalties from Arthrex. M.T.P. has received honoraria from Arthrosurface and hospitality payments from Smith & Nephew. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

APPENDIX

References

Aboalata

Plath

Seppel

Juretzko

Vogt

Imhoff

. Results of arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior-inferior shoulder instability at 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(4):782–787.

Adam

Attia

Alhammoud

Aldahamsheh

Al Ateeq Al Dosari

Ahmed

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair for the acute anterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2018;42(10):2413–2422.

Antunes

Mendes

Prado

Moro

Miro

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent shoulder instability: a retrospective study of 86 cases. J Orthop. 2016;13(2):95–99.

Archetti Netto

Tamaoki

Lenza

. Treatment of Bankart lesions in traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: a randomized controlled trial comparing arthroscopy and open techniques. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(7):900–908.

Arciero

Wheeler

Ryan

McBride

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus nonoperative treatment for acute, initial anterior shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(5):589–594.

Aydin

Unal

Asansu

Tok

. Concomitant SLAP repair does not influence the surgical outcome for arthroscopic Bankart repair of traumatic shoulder dislocations. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25(2):2309499017718952.

Bessiere

Trojani

Carles

Mehta

Boileau

. The open Latarjet procedure is more reliable in terms of shoulder stability than arthroscopic Bankart repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(8):2345–2351.

Blonna

Bellato

Caranzano

Assom

Rossi

Castoldi

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Bristow-Latarjet for shoulder instability: a matched-pair multicenter study focused on return to sport. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(12):3198–3205.

Bottoni

Wilckens

DeBerardino

. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):576–580.

10.

Boughebri

Maqdes

Moraiti

Dib

Leclere

Valenti

. Results of 45 arthroscopic Bankart procedures: does the ISIS remain a reliable prognostic assessment after 5 years? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(4):709–716.

11.

Bouliane

Saliken

Beaupre

Silveira

Saraswat

Sheps

. Evaluation of the Instability Severity Index Score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index as predictors of failure following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Bone Joint J. 2014;96(12):1688–1692.

12.

Chapus

Rochcongar

Pineau

Salle de Chou

Hulet

. Ten-year follow-up of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for initial anterior shoulder dislocation in young patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(8):889–893.

13.

Chechik

Maman

Dolkart

Khashan

Shabtai

Mozes

. Arthroscopic rotator interval closure in shoulder instability repair: a retrospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1056–1062.

14.

Cho

Yoo

Juh

Rhee

. Anterior shoulder instability with engaging Hill-Sachs defects: a comparison of arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without posterior capsulodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(12):3801–3808.

15.

Cleeman

Flatow

. Shoulder dislocations in the young patient. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(2):217–229.

16.

Mohamed

Tan

. Long term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:28.

17.

Elmlund

Kartus

Sernert

Hultenheim

Ejerhed

. A long-term clinical follow-up study after arthroscopic intra-articular Bankart repair using absorbable tacks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(7):707–712.

18.

Elmlund

Ejerhed

Sernert

Rostgard

Kartus

. Dislocation arthropathy and drill hole appearance in a mid- to long-term follow-up study after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2156–2162.

19.

Elmlund

Kartus

Rostgard-Christensen

Sernert

Magnusson

Ejerhed

. A 7-year prospective, randomized, clinical, and radiographic study after arthroscopic Bankart reconstruction using 2 different types of absorbable tack. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):1930–1937.

20.

Flinkkila

Hyvonen

Ohtonen

Leppilahti

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair: results and risk factors of recurrence of instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(12):1752–1758.

21.

Flinkkila

Knape

Sirnio

Ohtonen

Leppilahti

. Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair: minimum 10 years of follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(1):94–99.

22.

Franceschi

Papalia

Del Buono

Vasta

Maffulli

Denaro

. Glenohumeral osteoarthritis after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior instability. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(8):1653–1659.

23.

Gartsman

Morris

Unger

Laughlin

Elkousy

Edwards

. Characteristics of clinical shoulder research over the last decade: a review of shoulder articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2004 to 2014. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(5):e26.

24.

Gaudelli

Balg

Godbout

. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the French language translation of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1):99–103.

25.

Gerometta

Rosso

Klouche

Hardy

. Arthroscopic Bankart shoulder stabilization in athletes: return to sports and functional outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(6):1877–1883.

26.

Gigis

Heikenfeld

Kapinas

Listringhaus

Godolias

. Arthroscopic versus conservative treatment of first anterior dislocation of the shoulder in adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop. 2014;34(4):421–425.

27.

Godinho

Freitas

Franca Fde

de Lago

ESFM

Aragao

Barros

. Bankart arthroscopic procedure: comparative study on use of double or single-thread anchors after a 2-year follow-up. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;50(1):94–99.

28.

Hantes

Venouziou

Liantsis

Dailiana

Malizos

. Arthroscopic repair for chronic anterior shoulder instability: a comparative study between patients with Bankart lesions and patients with combined Bankart and superior labral anterior posterior lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1093–1098.

29.

Harris

Gupta

Mall

. Long-term outcomes after Bankart shoulder stabilization. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(5):920–933.

30.

Hedges

Vevea

. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486–504.

31.

Jeon

Jeong

Lee

Rhee

. Borderline glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability: Latarjet procedure versus Bankart repair. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(9):2170–2176.

32.

Kalkar

Esenyel

Saygili

Esenyel

Gurbuz

. The results of Bankart repair without capsular plication in patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25(1):2309499016684753.

33.

Kasik

Saper

. Variability of outcome reporting following arthroscopic Bankart repair in adolescent athletes: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1288–1294.

34.

Kim

Yoon

. Arthroscopic repair for combined Bankart and superior labral anterior posterior lesions: a comparative study between primary and recurrent anterior dislocation in the shoulder. Int Orthop. 2011;35(8):1187–1195.

35.

Kirkley

Griffin

Richards

Miniaci

Mohtadi

. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(5):507–514.

36.

Kraus

Freude

Fiedler

Schroter

Stockle

Ateschrang

. Incapacity of work after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(10):1429–1436.

37.

Larrain

Botto

Montenegro

Mauas

. Arthroscopic repair of acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young athletes. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(4):373–377.

38.

Lenters

Franta

Wolf

Leopold

Matsen

3rd . Arthroscopic compared with open repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):244–254.

39.

Lukenchuk

Sims

Shin

. Variability in outcome reporting for operatively managed anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(2):477–483.

40.

Lutzner

Krummenauer

Lubke

Kirschner

Gunther

Bottesi

. Functional outcome after open and arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic shoulder instability. Eur J Med Res. 2009;14(1):18–24.

41.

Mahirogullari

Ozkan

Akyuz

Ugras

Guney

Kuskucu

. Comparison between the results of open and arthroscopic repair of isolated traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44(3):180–185.

42.

Makhni

Steinhaus

Morrow

. Outcomes assessment in rotator cuff pathology: what are we measuring? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(12):2008–2015.

43.

Maman

Dolkart

Kazum

. Rotator interval closure has no additional effect on shoulder stability compared to Bankart repair alone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(5):673–677.

44.

Marans

Angel

Schemitsch

Wedge

. The fate of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(8):1242–1244.

45.

Marshall

Vega

Siqueira

Cagle

Gelber

Saluan

. Outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair: patients with first-time versus recurrent dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(8):1776–1782.

46.

Memon

Kay

Cadet

Shahsavar

Simunovic

Ayeni

. Return to sport following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(7):1342–1347.

47.

Mishra

Sharma

Chaudhary

. Analysis of the functional results of arthroscopic Bankart repair in posttraumatic recurrent anterior dislocations of shoulder. Indian J Orthop. 2012;46(6):668–674.

48.

Nixon

Keenan

Funk

. High recurrence of instability in adolescents playing contact sports after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2015;24(3):173–177.

49.

O’Brien

Neves

Arnoczky

. The anatomy and histology of the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(5):449–456.

50.

Owens

Cameron

Peck

. Arthroscopic versus open stabilization for anterior shoulder subluxations. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015;3(1):2325967115571084.

51.

Owens

DeBerardino

Nelson

. Long-term follow-up of acute arthroscopic Bankart repair for initial anterior shoulder dislocations in young athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):669–673.

52.

Owens

Duffey

Nelson

DeBerardino

Taylor

Mountcastle

. The incidence and characteristics of shoulder instability at the United States Military Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(7):1168–1173.

53.

Ozbaydar

Elhassan

Diller

Massimini

Higgins

Warner

. Results of arthroscopic capsulolabral repair: Bankart lesion versus anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion lesion. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(11):1277–1283.

54.

Park

Lee

Chung

Noh

Kim

. Does anchor placement on the glenoid affect functional outcome after arthroscopic Bankart repair? Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(10):2466–2471.

55.

Plath

Aboalata

Seppel

. Prevalence of and risk factors for dislocation arthropathy: radiological long-term outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair in 100 shoulders at an average 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(5):1084–1090.

56.

Pogorzelski

Fritz

Horan

Katthagen

Provencher

Millett

. Failure following arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anteroinferior instability of the shoulder: is a glenoid labral articular disruption (GLAD) lesion a risk factor for recurrent instability? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(8):e235–e242.

57.

Porcellini

Campi

Pegreffi

Castagna

Paladini

. Predisposing factors for recurrent shoulder dislocation after arthroscopic treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(11):2537–2542.

58.

Privitera

Bisson

Marzo

. Minimum 10-year follow-up of arthroscopic intra-articular Bankart repair using bioabsorbable tacks. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(1):100–107.

59.

Ramsey

Getz

Parsons

. What’s new in shoulder and elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(4):1047–1061.

60.

Robinson

Howes

Murdoch

Will

Graham

. Functional outcome and risk of recurrent instability after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(11):2326–2336.

61.

Robinson

Jenkins

White

Ker

Will

. Primary arthroscopic stabilization for a first-time anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(4):708–721.

62.

Romeo

Cohen

Carreira

. Traumatic anterior shoulder instability. Orthop Clin North Am. 2001;32(3):399–409.

63.

Rouleau

Faber

MacDermid

. Systematic review of patient-administered shoulder functional scores on instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1121–1128.

64.

Sachs

Lin

Stone

Paxton

Kuney

. Can the need for future surgery for acute traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation be predicted? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1665–1674.

65.

Saier

Plath

Waibel

. How satisfied are patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair? A 2-year follow-up on quality-of-life outcome. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(10):1777–1785.

66.

Saper

Milchteim

Zondervan

Andrews

Ostrander

3rd . Outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair in adolescent athletes participating in collision and contact sports. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(3):2325967117697950.

67.

Schwarzer G. meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–45.

68.

Sedeek

Tey

Tan

. Arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability with the use of suture anchors. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(9):676–681.

69.

Shah

Nadiri

Torrance

Funk

. Arthroscopic repair of bony Bankart lesions in collision athletes. Shoulder Elbow. 2018;10(3):201–206.

70.

Shibata

Gotoh

Mitsui

. Risk factors for shoulder re-dislocation after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:53.

71.

Slim

Nini

Forestier

Kwiatkowski

Panis

Chipponi

. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–716.

72.

Stein

Linke

Buckup

. Shoulder sport-specific impairments after arthroscopic Bankart repair: a prospective longitudinal assessment. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(11):2404–2414.

73.

Stroup

Berlin

Morton

. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.

74.

Szyluk

Jasinski

Widuchowski

Mielnik

Koczy

. Results of arthroscopic Bankart lesion repair in patients with post-traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder and a non-engaging Hill-Sachs lesion with a suture anchor after a minimum of 6-year follow-up. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:2331–2338.

75.

Team

. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.

76.

Uchiyama

Handa

Shimpuku

. Open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift versus arthroscopic Bankart repair without augmentations for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25(3):2309499017727947.

77.

Vermeiren

Handelberg

Casteleyn

Opdecam

. The rate of recurrence of traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a study of 154 cases and a review of the literature. Int Orthop. 1993;17(6):337–341.

78.

Viechtbauer

. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.

79.

Virk

Manzo

Cote

. Comparison of time to recurrence of instability after open and arthroscopic Bankart repair techniques. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(6):2325967116654114.

80.

Voos

Livermore

Feeley

. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior instability. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):302–307.

81.

Wickham

. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009.

82.

Yamamoto

Kijima

Nagamoto

. Outcome of Bankart repair in contact versus non-contact athletes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(4):415–419.

83.

Zhu

Young

Pinto

Poon

. Functional outcome and the structural integrity of arthroscopic Bankart repair: a prospective trial. Shoulder Elbow. 2015;7(2):85–93.

84.

Zimmermann

Scheyerer

Farshad

Catanzaro

Rahm

Gerber

. Long-term restoration of anterior shoulder stability: a retrospective analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(23):1954–1961.

Variability of Reporting Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Call for a Standardized Study Design

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Search Strategy

Study Eligibility

Data Extraction and Processing

Quantitative Synthesis

Evaluation of Study Quality

Results

Study Characteristics

Meta-analysis

Subgroup Analysis

Meta-regression

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

APPENDIX

References