Mangold, Devin R.

AbstractPurposeTo compare rates of recurrent instability, revision surgery and functional outcomes following arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair for recurrent anterior instability using knot‐tying versus knotless suture anchor techniques.MethodsPatients who had undergone arthroscopic anterior labrum and capsular repair for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability using knotless anchors were identified. Those with minimum 2‐year follow‐up were matched (1:2) to knot‐tying anchor repair patients. Rates of failure and recurrent instability were compared, as well as Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Rowe scores.ResultsOne hundred and two patients (89 males, 13 females) with a mean age of 24.3 ± 9.6 were included. Repair was performed with knotless anchors in 34 and knot‐tying anchors in 68 shoulders. At mean follow‐up of 4.8 ± 2.5 years, re‐dislocation rates between groups were not significantly different (knotless anchor: 9% versus knot‐tying group: 15%, n.s.), but the knot‐tying group showed a higher re‐subluxation rate (p = 0.039). 12 (18%) revisions were performed in the knot‐tying group at a mean 2.9 years after surgery and 1 (3%) revision in the knotless anchors group at 1.4 years (n.s.). There was no difference in mean VAS with use (1.3 ± 1.9 versus 0.8 ± 1.5, n.s.), SANE scores (91.8 ± 12.7 versus 92.0 ± 11.0, n.s.), QuickDASH scores (4.1 ± 5.5 versus 3.0 ± 6.5, n.s.), UCLA Shoulder Score (32.5 ± 3.6 versus 33.2 ± 3.1, n.s.), or Rowe scores (90.5 ± 18.5 versus 92.2 ± 16.6, n.s.) between knotless and knot‐tying groups, respectively. VAS at rest was higher in the knotless group (0.7 ± 1.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.4, p = 0.021).ConclusionsKnotless anchors demonstrated similar rates of re‐dislocation and revision surgery, and lower rates of recurrent subluxation, compared to knot‐tying anchors. Patients achieved good‐to‐excellent functional outcomes. This supports the efficacy of knotless anchors as an alternative to knot‐tying anchors for arthroscopic anterior labral repair of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.Level of evidenceIII.

Background Substantial proximal humeral bone loss may compromise reverse shoulder arthroplasty secondary to limited implant support, insufficient soft tissue tension due to shortening, lack of attachment sites for the posterosuperior cuff when present, and lack of lateral offset of the deltoid. In these circumstances, use of a proximal humeral replacement may be considered. Patients/Methods Between 2012 and 2014, 34 consecutive reverse shoulder arthroplasties were performed using a proximal humeral replacement system. The indications were failed shoulder arthroplasty (15), oncology reconstruction (9), humeral malunion/nonunion (7), prior resection arthroplasty (2), and intraoperative fracture (1). All patients were included in the survival analysis. Twenty-two patients with minimum 2-year follow-up were included in analysis of clinical results. Results Among the cohort of 34 patients, there were 8 additional reoperations: humeral loosening (3), periprosthetic fracture (2), irrigation and debridement (2), and glenoid loosening (1). Humeral component loosening occurred exclusively in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. The 4 patients had an average 3.75 prior procedures before the proximal humeral replacement. Two of the revisions were from cemented to uncemented stems. Among the 23 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up, there was significant improvement in pain scores (4.1 vs 0.6), forward elevation (31 vs 109) degrees, and 81% were satisfied. Conclusion Use of a proximal humeral replacement when performing a reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the complex setting of substantial proximal humerus bone loss provides good clinical results and a particularly low dislocation rate. However, the rate of loosening of the humeral component in the revision setting suggests that proximal humeral replacement components should be cemented when revising a previously cemented stem. IRB 16-006966.