The role of arthroscopy in revision of failed open anterior stabilization of the shoulder.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of revision arthroscopic stabilization after failed open anterior shoulder stabilization.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective series of 22 consecutive patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after open surgical stabilization (12 Latarjet procedures, 4 Eden-Hybinette procedures, 3 open Bankart repairs, and 3 capsular shifts). Failure was associated with a traumatic episode in 12 patients, capsular laxity with persistent Bankart lesions in all patients, and a bone block complication in 13 patients. Labral reattachment and capsuloligamentous retensioning with suture anchors were performed in all cases. An additional rotator interval closure was performed in 4 cases and an inferior capsular application in 12. Bone block screws were removed during arthroscopy in 8 patients because of malpositioning or mobility. Nineteen patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 43 months.

RESULTS

All patients returned to their previous occupations, including 6 cases of work-related injury. Of the patients, 1 (5%) had recurrent subluxation and 2 (11%) had persistent apprehension. The subjective shoulder value was 83% +/- 23%. A good or excellent result was found in 85% of patients according to the Walch-Duplay score and 13 patients (67%) according to the Rowe score. Shoulder pain was found in 6 patients (32%) (4 with light pain and 2 with moderate pain). Of the 5 patients with osteoarthritis before surgery, 3 progressed by 1 stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic revision of failed open anterior shoulder stabilization provides satisfactory results in a selected patient population. Some persistent pain and osteoarthritis progression remain concerns. The main advantages of the arthroscopic approach are the avoidance of anterior dissection in front of the subscapularis, which places the axillary nerve at risk, and the ability to address the various soft-tissue pathologies encountered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.