Risk factors for recurrence after Bankart repair a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose: Arthroscopic Bankart repair of anterior shoulder instability is a common practice in orthopedics. The aim of this study was to evaluate pre-operative risks factors associated with recurrent instability and to delineate possible indications for revision surgery.

Methods: A systematic review was performed including the following keywords: arthroscopy, Bankart repair, anterior shoulder instability, recurrence of instability, suture anchors and treatment outcome. Studies eligible for inclusion in the review were clinical trials published in the last 10 years investigating patients with anterior shoulder instability managed by an arthroscopic repair technique with suture anchors. The studies had to report data about recurrence of instability and investigational parameters (risk factors) that influenced the results referred to the rate of recurrence. Twenty-four articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria and underwent further review. Data from these studies were collected, and the risk of treatment failure was statistically recalculated. An estimate of the overall recurrence rate was obtained by pooling data about failure from the trials.

Results: The rate of recurrent instability at 10 years of follow-up ranged from 3.4 to 35 %. Epidemiological parameters significantly associated with the recurrence of instability were age below 22 years old, male gender, the number of preoperative dislocations and participation in competitive sports. Surgical parameters significantly associated with recurrence of instability were repair with fewer than three anchors and the use of knotless anchors. The patho-anatomical factors significantly associated with recurrences were substantial associated glenoid or humeral head bone loss and the presence of anterior labroligamentous periosteal sleeve avulsion.

Conclusions: Knowledge of risk factors for post-operative outcomes allows surgeons to provide appropriate preoperative counselling to patients and support more realistic expectations. An accurate analysis of causes of failure should enable the correct revision strategy to be adopted.

Level of evidence: II.