Advertisement

On-the-Edge Anchor Placement May Be Protective Against Glenoid Rim Erosion After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared to on-the-Face Anchor Placement

Published:October 26, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.10.013

      Purpose

      This retrospective study aimed to compare the effects of 2 different anchoring placements on glenoid rim erosion after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

      Methods

      Shoulders that underwent ABR from January 2013 to July 2020 were divided into 2 groups according to anchor placement (on-the-face, group F; on-the-edge, group E). We retrospectively calculated the percent change of glenoid width (Δ) on the first postoperative computed tomography scan (CT; performed within 6 months) and second postoperative CT (performed at 6 to 12 months) relative to the width on the preoperative CT and compared percent changes between the 2 groups. Also, we investigated the influence of preoperative glenoid structures (normal, erosion, bony Bankart) and the postoperative recurrence rate.

      Results

      We examined 225 shoulders in 214 patients (group F, n = 151; group E, n = 74). At first CT, anchoring placement was significantly associated with postoperative decrease of glenoid width (group F, −7.6% ± 7.9%; group E, −0.1% ± 9.7%; P < .0001). The difference between groups F and E was significant in shoulders with a preoperative glenoid defect (bony Bankart, −6.6% ± 8.8% vs 2.5% ± 11.2%, respectively; P < .0001; erosion, −6.6% ± 6.2% vs −2.6% ± 5.3%, respectively; P = .03). In 112 shoulders, CT was performed twice; Δ was −6.9% ± 7.3% in group F (n = 64) and −1.7% ± 10.1% in group E (n = 48; P = .005) at the first CT and −3.2% ± 10.0% and 1.0% ± 10.6% (P = .10), respectively, at the second CT, indicating recovery of glenoid width in both groups. The postoperative recurrence rate in patients with at least 2 years’ follow-up was 14.7% in group F and 14.6% in group E.

      Conclusions

      In the early stage after ABR, on-the-edge glenoid anchor placement was associated with less glenoid rim erosion than on-the-face anchor placement.

      Level of Evidence

      Level III, retrospective comparative trial.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bigliani L.U.
        • Newton P.M.
        • Steinmann S.P.
        • Connor P.M.
        • McLlveen S.J.
        Glenoid rim lesions associated with recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder.
        Am J Sports Med. 1998; 26: 41-45
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Mae T.
        • Sato S.
        • Okimura S.
        • Kuroda M.
        Risk factors for the postoperative recurrence of instability after arthroscopic bankart repair in athletes.
        Orthop J Sports Med. 2017; 5 (2325967117726494)
        • Burkhart S.S.
        • De Beer J.F.
        Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: Significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.
        Arthroscopy. 2000; 16: 677-694
        • Itoi E.
        • Lee S.B.
        • Berglund L.J.
        • Berge L.L.
        • An K.N.
        The effect of a glenoid defect on anteroinferior stability of the shoulder after Bankart repair: A cadaveric study.
        J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 35-46
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Ozaki R.
        • Take Y.
        • Mae T.
        • Hayashida K.
        Bone fragment union and remodeling after arthroscopic bony bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability with a glenoid defect: Influence on postoperative recurrence of instability.
        Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 1438-1447
        • Kitayama S.
        • Sugaya H.
        • Takahashi N.
        • et al.
        Clinical outcome and glenoid morphology after arthroscopic repair of chronic osseous Bankart lesions: A five to eight-year follow-up study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1833-1843
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Mae T.
        • Yoneda K.
        • Kinugasa K.
        • Nakamura H.
        Influence of glenoid defect size and bone fragment size on the clinical outcome after arthroscopic Bankart repair in male collision/contact athletes.
        Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 1967-1974
        • Sugawa K.
        • Matsuura K.
        • Nakai H.
        Glenoid width changes after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
        Shoulder Joint. 2016; 40: 539-542
        • Hirose T.
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Iuchi R.
        • Mae T.
        • Hayashida K.
        Progression of erosive changes of glenoid rim after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
        Arthroscopy. 2020; 36: 44-53
        • Nishimoto R.
        • Goto K.
        Glenoid rim morphological changes after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
        Shoulder Joint. 2020; 44: 32-38
        • Yamamoto R.
        • Kurokouchi K.
        • Takahashi S.
        • Yoda M.
        • Nakashima M.
        Morphological changes in glenoid after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
        Shoulder Joint. 2017; 40: 857-860
        • Uchiyama Y.
        • Omi H.
        • Imai K.
        • Shinpuku E.
        • Watanabe M.
        Anchor insertion depth in recurrent shoulder dislocation and subluxation worsens postoperative anterior glenoid rim morphology.
        Shoulder Joint. 2019; 43: 429-432
        • Sakai T.
        • Hiraiwa H.
        • Hamada Y.
        • et al.
        Relationship between anterior glenoid rim erosion and clinical outcome after arthroscopic Bankart repair.
        Shoulder Joint. 2017; 41 (Proceeding): 858
        • Inoue K.
        • Suenaga N.
        • Oizumi N.
        • et al.
        Glenoid bone resorption after Bankart repair: Finite element analysis of postoperative stress distribution of the glenoid.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30: 188-193
        • Boileau P.
        • Mercier N.
        • Roussanne Y.
        • Thelu C.E.
        • Old J.
        Arthroscopic Bankart-Bristow-Latarjet procedure: The development and early results of a safe and reproducible technique.
        Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 1434-1450
        • Sugaya H.
        • Moriishi J.
        • Dohi M.
        • Kon Y.
        • Tsuchiya A.
        Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 878-884
        • Park J.Y.
        • Lee J.H.
        • Chung S.W.
        • Oh K.S.
        • Noh Y.M.
        • Kim S.J.
        Does anchor placement on the glenoid affect functional outcome after arthroscopic Bankart repair?.
        Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 2466-2471
        • Burkhart S.S.
        • Lo I.K.Y.
        • Brady P.C.
        Burkhart's view of the shoulder: A cowboy's guide to advanced shoulder arthroscopy.
        Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2006
        • Desai S.S.
        • Singh V.
        • Mata H.K.
        Arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without curettage of the glenoid edge: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.
        Arthroscopy. 2021; 37: 837-842
        • Ahmad C.S.
        • Galano G.J.
        • Vorys G.C.
        • Covey A.S.
        • Gardner T.R.
        • Levine W.N.
        Evaluation of glenoid capsulolabral complex insertional anatomy and restoration with single- and double-row capsulolabral repairs.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 948-954
        • Kim D.S.
        • Yoon Y.S.
        • Chung H.J.
        Single-row versus double-row capsulolabral repair: A comparative evaluation of contact pressure and surface area in the capsulolabral complex-glenoid bone interface.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 1500-1506