UNASSIGNED: This study\'s primary aim was to assess the safety and performance of second-generation all-soft suture anchors following arthroscopic labral tear repair.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective, multicenter study was conducted by 6 surgeons at 6 sites in Europe and the United States between November 2018 and August 2020. Patients who required shoulder arthroscopic repair, for a range of labral injuries, were treated with a second-generation all-soft suture anchor. The primary outcome was clinical success rate (percentage of patients without signs of failure and/or reintervention) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success rate at 12 months, intraoperative anchor deployment success rate, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6 and 12 months, including visual analog scale (VAS) pain assessment, VAS satisfaction assessment, EQ-5D-5L Index Score, EQ-5D-5L VAS Health Score, Rowe Shoulder Score for Instability, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Constant-Murley Shoulder Score. Serious adverse events and serious adverse device effects were collected throughout the study.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-one patients were enrolled (mean age, 28.2 years; 87.8% male, 12.2% female). Clinical success was achieved in 27/28 and 31/32 patients at 6 months and 12 months, respectively. Anchor deployment had a 100% success rate. Significant improvements over baseline were reported for all PROs except Constant-Murley Shoulder (6 months) and VAS Satisfaction Score (12 months). One patient experienced 1 serious adverse event and 1 patient experienced 1 serious adverse device effect.
UNASSIGNED: Second-generation all-soft suture anchors used in this study demonstrated a high clinical success rate, a favorable safety profile, and patients exhibited significant improvement in PROs.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure (LP) is performed as a primary stabilization procedure (primary LP) and a salvage procedure when an earlier shoulder stabilization procedure has failed (salvage LP). However, whether primary LP or salvage LP provides better outcomes for anterior shoulder instability remains unknown.
METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, web of science and Cochrane Library was performed from their inception date to December 4, 2023. Inclusion criteria mainly included the comparison of postoperative outcomes between primary and salvage LP, English language, and full text availability. Two reviewers independently examined the literature, collected data, and evaluated the methodological robustness of the included studies. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Recurrent instability, complications, reoperations, return to sports, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were assessed. Statistical evaluations were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK).
RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the systematic review, with 940 shoulders undergoing primary LP and 631 shoulders undergoing salvage LP. Statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP were found in 2 of the 11 and 2 of 4 included studies in terms of recurrent instability and returning to the same sports (RTS) at preinjury level, respectively. In terms of the visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 2 of the 4, 1 of the 3 and 1 of the 3 included studies reported statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP. Differences were not noticed regarding complications, reoperations, the time to RTS, the Rowe score, the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System, and forward flexion.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that compared with primary LP, salvage LP may provide inferior postoperative outcomes in terms of recurrent instability and the rate of RTS at preinjury level. Primary and salvage LP may yield comparable efficacy in terms of complications, reoperations, the rate of RTS, the time to RTS, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023492027.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement of glenoid bone loss in the shoulder instability can be assessed by CT or MRI multiplanar imaging and is crucial for pre-operative planning. The aim of this study is to determine the intra and interobserver reliability of glenoid deficiency measurement using MRI multiplanar reconstruction with 2D assessment in the sagittal plane (MPR MRI).
METHODS: We reviewed MRI images of 80 patients with anterior shoulder instability with Osirix software using MPR. Six observers with basic experience measured the glenoid, erosion edge length, and bone loss twice, with at least one-week interval between measurements. We calculated reliability and repeatability using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change with 95% confidence (MDC95%).
RESULTS: Intra and Inter-observer ICC and MDC95% for glenoid width and height were excellent (ICC 0,89-0,96). For erosion edge length and area of the glenoid were acceptable/good (ICC 0,61-0,89). Bone loss and Pico Index were associated with acceptable/good ICC (0,63 -0,86)) but poor MDC95% (45 - 84 %). Intra-observer reliability improved with time, while inter-observer remained unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: The MPR MRI measurement of the anterior glenoid lesion is very good tool for linear parameters. This method is not valid for Pico index measurement, as the area of bone loss is variable. The pace of learning is individual, therefore complex calculations based on MPR MRI are not resistant to low experience as opposed to true 3D CT.

UNASSIGNED: There is a lack of data regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of open repair of humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL).
UNASSIGNED: To examine the long-term patient outcomes, prevalence of related shoulder lesions, and return to sports in patients who have had open HAGL repair.
UNASSIGNED: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: Included were 47 patients who underwent open repair of an HAGL lesion between 1995 and 2013. Clinical results were assessed using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). Recurrence of instability, additional surgeries, confidence in the shoulder, level and type of sport before and after surgery, and return to sports were documented.
UNASSIGNED: The mean follow-up duration was 105 months (range, 16-247 months). The mean postoperative WOSI score was 410. Postoperatively, 10 patients experienced a recurrence of instability. Subgroup analysis of patients who reported recurrence demonstrated significantly worse WOSI scores compared with patients who did not experience recurrence (730 [95% CI, 470-990] vs 320 [95% CI, 210-430], respectively; P = .007). Before surgery, 33 patients participated in competitive sports, compared with 22 patients after surgery. No postoperative neurologic or vascular complications were recorded. In 51% of patients, a labral tear was noted as a concomitant injury.
UNASSIGNED: Open repair of an HAGL lesion restored shoulder stability with good results. However, recurrence was significant (21%) with longer follow-up, and return to sports was affected. Associated lesions were prevalent.

Rotator cuff tears (RCT) and instability are the most common surgically treated shoulder pathologies. The concept of augmentation using the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) autograft was created to improve the results of surgical treatment of these pathologies, especially in cases of chronic and massive injuries. The popularity of using the LHBT for augmentation is evidenced by the significant number of publications on this topic published in the last 3 years; however, only one systematic review has been published regarding only LHBT augmentation for massive RCTs. Several studies comparing partial repair with partial repair and additional LHBT augmentation for RCT showed superior clinical outcomes and lower re-tear rates when LHBT augmentation was performed. There is a rising popularity of using LHBT as an autograft to perform superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) in case of irreparable rotator cuff tears. In recent years, shoulder stabilization by arthroscopic Bankart repair with biceps augmentation has been promoted with very promising short-term results. The evidence provided by studies appears to be sufficient to recommend the use of LHBT for augmentation whenever necessary; however, larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed.

OBJECTIVE: Arthroscopic remplissage has continued to gain popularity as an adjunct to Bankart repair for patients with anterior shoulder instability. Although the original remplissage technique was described over 15 years ago, our understanding of when and how to use this procedure continues to evolve. This article provides a review of how remplissage affects shoulder biomechanics, compares clinical outcomes between remplissage and other procedures for shoulder instability, and discusses current indications for remplissage.
RESULTS: Current research focuses on the use of remplissage across a wide range of glenoid bone loss. Remplissage appears effective at preventing recurrent instability in patients with glenoid bone loss up to 15% of the glenoid width. However, once glenoid bone exceeds 15%, outcomes tend to favor bony reconstruction procedures such as Latarjet. Results of biomechanical studies examining shoulder range of motion (ROM) after remplissage are mixed, though clinical studies tend to report no significant limitations in ROM when remplissage is added to a Bankart repair. Adding a remplissage to conventional Bankart repair may improve clinical outcomes and lower rates of recurrent instability without significantly altering shoulder ROM. However, surgeons should recognize its limitations in treating patients with large amounts of glenoid bone loss and should be prepared to discuss alternative procedures on a case-by-case basis. Absolute indications and contraindications for remplissage are not well defined currently and require further scientific research.

UNASSIGNED: Assessment and quantification of bone loss in cases of shoulder instability is critical for surgical decision making. The glenoid track concept was initially developed to assess Hill Sachs lesions taking into account the native glenoid diameter of the contralateral shoulder and assessing the degree of glenoid bone loss. However, it can not be reverse calculated to determine the effect of an addition of a bone block. We have developed a novel model to help address this problem yielding an \"effective glenoid track\" (EGT).
UNASSIGNED: Begin as we always do by using Itoi\'s concept for assessment of tracking based on the CT scan cuts. Next step is to calucate the Hill Sach\'s interval (HSI) which will require an MRI scan.
UNASSIGNED: The EGT allows for calculation of residual tracking of Hill Sachs lesions post a bone block addition and will aid in surgical decision making.

UNASSIGNED: Anterior shoulder instability can be debilitating for young, active individuals, and increasing magnitudes of glenoid bone loss (GBL) predisposes patients to recurrent instability and increases the likelihood of failure of soft-tissue only repairs. It is widely accepted that GBL >25% should be treated with a glenoid bone grafting procedure. However, consensus is lacking on the optimal management in the setting of subcritical GBL, typically classified as >13.5%. This article reviews the pathoanatomy relevant to anterior shoulder instability and subcritical GBL, while highlighting existing evidence regarding open augmentation procedures in comparison to other treatment options for this subpopulation.
UNASSIGNED: A narrative review of the current literature was conducted focusing on subcritical GBL in anterior glenoid stabilization procedures, including review of forward citation and reference lists of selected articles.
UNASSIGNED: Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for obtaining precise measurements of subcritical GBL, defined as <13.5%, using the best-fit circle method. There is debate surrounding the optimal surgical management of subcritical GBL. Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) remains the predominate surgery performed for primary anterior shoulder instability, while glenoid augmentation and open Bankart repair continue to be used sparingly in the United States. Historically, the Latarjet procedure was considered for substantial glenoid defects, but the illumination of subcritical GBL has expanded its indications. Arthroscopic, soft tissue-only repairs with the addition of remplissage, has been shown to have similar 2-year outcomes to the Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL, which has been limited in the study of subcritical GBL. Additionally, utilization of distal tibial allograft and local autograft is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, again, with limited prospective studies in the subcritical GBL population.
UNASSIGNED: There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment approach to recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of subcritical GBL. Conversely, there is a growing agreement that isolated ABR is likely inadequate and subcritical GBL should prompt consideration of a more robust operation. To this end, interest in glenoid bone augmentation continues to grow as a reliable technique for recreating the native architecture and restoring glenohumeral stability are developed.

Introduction Shoulder dislocation is the most common injury encountered in orthopedic outpatient department. The choice of procedure depends on the expertise of surgeons. The objective of this study was to compare the Latarjet procedure with the modified Putti-Platt surgery for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in terms of functional outcomes. Materials and methods A quasi-experimental study evaluated 60 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were assigned to either Latarjet or modified Putti-Platt surgery. Functional outcomes were assessed at six months using the Constant-Murley shoulder score. Results This study encompassed 60 patients (mean age: 23.93±5.88 years) undergoing shoulder procedures. Functional outcomes exhibited a majority of 55% excellent, 35% good, 6.7% fair, and 3.3% poor outcomes. No significant differences in functional outcomes were found between the procedures. Conclusion Both procedures may be viable options for recurrent shoulder instability. The choice may depend on patient factors and surgeon preference. Further research is needed to refine techniques and identify ideal candidates.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to describe the evolution of the open labral repair with capsular shift, including the current role of this procedure in the treatment of shoulder instability.
RESULTS: Currently, a subset of patients - high-level collision/contact sport athletes, patients with significant inferior or multi-directional instability, and individuals with failed arthroscopic Bankart repair without bone loss - may experience benefit from undergoing open Bankart repair with capsular shift. Surgeons performing open stabilization can benefit from instrumentation and anchors developed to assist with arthroscopic techniques. Understanding the history and evolution behind the procedure not only allows the surgeon to appreciate principles behind an arthroscopic approach, but also permits the utilization of an open approach when required by patient pathology and risk factors.