The Epidemiology of Glenohumeral Joint Instability: Incidence, Burden, and Long-term Consequences

Background Management of bone loss in recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability remains a topic of debate and controversy in the orthopedic community. The purpose of this study was to survey members of 4 North American orthopedic surgeon associations to assess management trends for bone loss in recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Methods An online survey was distributed to all members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, and Canadian Orthopaedic Association and to fellow members of the Arthroscopy Association of North America. The survey comprised 3 sections assessing the demographic characteristics of survey respondents, the influence of prognostic factors on surgical decision making, and the operative management of 12 clinical case scenarios of varying bone loss that may be encountered in clinical practice. Results A total of 150 survey responses were returned. The age of the patient and quantity of bone loss were consistently considered important prognostic criteria. However, little consensus was reached for critical thresholds of bone loss and how this affected the timing (ie, primary or revision surgery) and type of bony augmentation procedure to be performed once a critical threshold was reached, especially in the context of critical humeral and bipolar bone loss. Conclusions Consistent trends were found for the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in cases in which no bone loss existed and when isolated critical glenoid bone loss was present. However, inconsistencies were observed when isolated critical humeral bone loss and bipolar bone loss were present.

Introduction: There is a large incidence of shoulder instability among active young athletes and military personnel. Shoulder stabilization surgery is the commonly employed intervention for treating individuals with instability. Following surgery, a substantial proportion of individuals experience acute post-operative pain, which is usually managed with opioid pain medications. Unfortunately, the extended use of opioid medications can have adverse effects that impair function and reduce military operational readiness, but there are currently few alternatives. However, Battlefield Acupuncture (BFA) is a minimally invasive therapy demonstrating promise as a non-pharmaceutical intervention for managing acute post-operative pain.Methods: This is a parallel, two-arm, single-blind randomized clinical trial. The two independent variables are intervention (2 levels; standard physical therapy and standard physical therapy plus Battlefield Acupuncture) and time (5 levels; 24-hours, 48-hours, 72-hours, 1-week, and 4-weeks post shoulder stabilization surgery). The primary dependent variables is worst and average pain as measured on the Visual Analog Scale. Secondary outcomes include medication usage, Profile of Mood States, and Global Rating of Change.Discussion: The magnitude of the effect of BFA is uncertain; current studies report confidence intervals of between group differences that include minimal clinically important differences between intervention and control groups. The results of this study may help determine if BFA is an effective adjunct to physical therapy in reducing pain and opioid usage in acute pain conditions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04094246. Registered 16 September 2019, http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT04094246.

Background: Patients who have undergone shoulder instability surgery are often allowed to return to sports, work, and high-level activity based largely on a time-based criterion of 6 months postoperatively. However, some believe that advancing activity after surgery should be dependent on the return of strength and range of motion (ROM). Hypothesis: There will be a significant loss of strength or ROM at 6 months after arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage compared with Bankart repair alone. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 38 patients in a prospective multicenter study underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (33 males, 5 females; mean age, 27.0 ± 10.2 years; 82% with ≥2 dislocation events in the past year). Strength and ROM were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months after surgery. Results were compared with 104 matched patients who had undergone Bankart repair without remplissage, although all had radiographic evidence of a Hill-Sachs defect. Results: At 6 months, there were no patients in the remplissage group with anterior apprehension on physical examination. However, 26% had a ≥20° external rotation (ER) deficit with the elbow at the side, 42% had a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction, and 5% had persistent weakness. Compared with matched patients who underwent only arthroscopic Bankart repair, the remplissage group had greater humeral bone loss and had a greater likelihood of a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction ( P = .004). Risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction were preoperative stiffness in the same plane ( P = .02), while risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at the side were increased number of inferior quadrant glenoid anchors ( P = .003), increased patient age ( P = .02), and preoperative side-to-side deficits in ER ( P = .04). The only risk factor for postoperative ER weakness was preoperative ER weakness ( P = .04), with no association with remplissage ( P = .26). Conclusion: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage did not result in significant strength deficits but increased the risk of ER stiffness in abduction compared with Bankart repair without remplissage at short-term follow-up.