Arthroscopic Bankart repair with peeling osteotomy of the anterior glenoid rim preserves glenoid morphology.

BACKGROUND

A decrease in the glenoid size after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) was common in shoulders without osseous fragments compared with those with osseous fragments. For cases of chronic recurrent traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability without osseous fragments, we have performed ABR with peeling osteotomy of the anterior glenoid rim (ABRPO) to make an intentional osseous Bankart lesion. The aim of this study was to compare the glenoid morphology after ABRPO with it after simple ABR.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent arthroscopic stabilization for chronic recurrent traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with an osseous fragment, with revision surgery and without complete data were excluded. Patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: Group A, ABR without peeling osteotomy procedure or Group B, with ABRPO procedure. Computed tomography was performed preoperatively and 1 year after surgery. The size of the glenoid bone loss was investigated by the assumed circle method. The following formula was used to calculate the decreased size of the glenoid: (Δ) = (postoperative size of the glenoid bone loss) - (preoperative size of the glenoid bone loss). The size of the glenoid 1 year after surgery was assessed to determine if it had decreased (Δ > 0%) or not decreased (Δ ≤ 0%) relative to the preoperative size.

RESULTS

This study evaluated 39 shoulders divided into 2 groups: 27 shoulders in Group A and 12 shoulders in Group B. In Group A, postoperative glenoid bone loss was significantly greater than preoperative glenoid bone loss (7.8 ± 6.2 vs. 5.5 ± 5.3, respectively, P = .02). In Group B, postoperative glenoid bone loss was significantly lower than preoperative glenoid bone loss (5.6 ± 5.4 vs. 8.7 ± 4.0, respectively, P = .02). The P value for the interaction of group (A or B) × time (preoperative or postoperative) was 0.001. The decreased size of the glenoid was significantly larger in Group A than in Group B (2.1 ± 4.2 vs. -3.1 ± 4.5, respectively, P = .001). The rate of shoulders in which the size of the glenoid decreased 1 year after surgery relative to the preoperative size was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (63% [17/27] vs. 25% [3/2], respectively, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that ABRPO preserved the glenoid size better than simple ABR without a peeling osteotomy procedure.