Read more

July 12, 2024
1 min read
Save

Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction may have lower redislocation rate vs. Bankart repair

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Key takeaways:

  • Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction had a lower redislocation rate vs. Bankart repair.
  • Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction also had better anterior-posterior remodeling.

DENVER — According to results presented here, arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction may have a lower redislocation rate compared with Bankart repair among patients with recurrent instability.

“[Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstructions] AAGRs at 5 years have a redislocation rate similar to a Latarjet,” Ivan Ho-Bun Wong, MD, FRCS(C), MAcM, Dip. Sports Med, said in his presentation at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meeting. “It is more stable than a Bankart repair at 5 years.”

OT0724Wong_AOSSM_Graphic_01
Data were derived from Wong IHB, et al. Paper 10. Presented at: American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meeting; July 10-14, 2024; Denver.

In a retrospective chart review with a minimum 5-year follow-up, Wong and colleagues analyzed data for 72 patients with less than 25% glenoid bone loss treated with either an AAGR (n = 41) or a Bankart repair (n = 31). They considered the redislocation rate as the primary outcome measure and also reviewed postoperative complications, revision surgeries, radiographic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

Ivan Ho-Bun Wong
Ivan Ho-Bun Wong

According to Wong, patients who underwent AAGR had a redislocation rate of 2.4% at 5 years compared with 17.8% in the Bankart group. In addition, Wong said CT scans showed patients with AAGRs “had remodeled back to a normal anterior to posterior dimension of the glenoid,” while patients who underwent Bankart repair roughly remained the same.

Wong also noted patients who underwent AAGR met minimal clinically important difference thresholds at a higher percentage than patients in the Bankart group. However, the AAGR group had a higher rate of hardware irritation compared with the Bankart group.

Neither group showed any further progression to osteoarthritis, and both groups had improvements in patient-reported outcomes, according to Wong.

“Our future directions for a randomized controlled trial will hopefully be able to be presented to you next year from AAGR to Bankart,” Wong concluded.