Arthroscopic Bankart repair: A matched cohort comparison of the modified Mason Allen method and the simple stitch method

© 2020 Asia Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society Introduction: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has become a standard treatment for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in cases with minimal bone loss. Using the standard Bankart repair technique, the failure rate has been report...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Phirat Siripipattanamongkol, Prasit Wongtriratanachai, Puwapong Nimkingratana, Chanakarn Phornphutkul
Format: Journal
Published: 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089431421&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/70629
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
Description
Summary:© 2020 Asia Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society Introduction: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has become a standard treatment for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation in cases with minimal bone loss. Using the standard Bankart repair technique, the failure rate has been reported to be approximately between 4 and 35%. In addition to the original injury, multiple pathologies can occur after a dislocation including a Bankart lesion, capsular redundancy and bone defects. In cases with no significant bone loss, soft tissue plays a major role in stabilizing the shoulder joint. We hypothesized that effective repair of soft tissue with good inferior capsular shifting and proper capsulolabral restoration can create a proper level of soft tissue tension so the horizontal mattress suture method should improve outcomes. Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing the records of patients with recurrent anterior instability who underwent ABR at a single institution between January 2009 and December 2017. Demographic information, preoperative radiographic data including glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs width, glenoid track and other surgical details were retrieved from the medical records. The patients identified were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 had one modified Mason Allen stitch plus simple stitches, while Group 2 had only simple stitches. Data obtained from the patient included failure rate, patient satisfaction, the ROWE score and Walch-Duplay score at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. Risk factors for failure were also identified. Results: Group 1 included 50 patients (mean age 27.2 ± 9.4 years) who underwent modified Mason Allen stitch ABR (median follow-up, 59.2 months; range, 26.2–128.6 months). Group 2 included 30 patients (mean age 26.9 ± 8.5 years) who underwent simple stitch repair ABR (median follow-up, 68.0 months; range, 24.0–127.9 months). All patients met the inclusion criteria. Evaluation at the final follow-up compared Group 1 and Group 2: ROWE score (86.8 vs 76.3, P = 0.001), Walch-Duplay score (87.2 vs 82.0, P = 0.035), respectively. Failure rates were 6% in group 1 compared to 10% in group 2 (P = 0.511). Conclusions: The modified Mason Allen stitch technique and the simple stitches technique ABR both result in excellent patient satisfaction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Both techniques successfully restore shoulder stability, but the modified Mason Allen stitch technique results in better functional outcomes. Study design: Cohort study; level of evidence, 3.