关节镜下辅助手术和开放手术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位的临床效果比较

目的创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者采用关节镜下辅助手术和开放手术治疗的临床效果及对肩关节功能的影响对比。方法选择2014年6月至2017年6月医院收治的88例创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者,采用随机数表法将患者分为两组,每组各44例,其中对照组给予常规开发手术治疗,观察组给予关节镜下辅助手术治疗,术后进行肩关节康复训练,并随访1年,采用视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS)对患者手术前后疼痛进行评分,于术后1年采用Rowe肩关节评分及Bigliani肩关节不稳手术修复后稳定性评分对肩关节功能的恢复情况进行评估,并对比两组并发症的发生情况。结果两组手术前VAS评分相比差异无统计学意义(t=0.11,P0.05);手术后1年,观察组评分显著低于对照组,两组相比差异有统计学意义(t=3.70,P0.05);对照组患者术后1年Rowe肩关节评分及Bigliani肩关节稳定性评分均高于观察组,两组相比差异有统计学意义(t=18.24、4.07,P0.05);对照组术后并发症的发生率为18.18%,观察组术后并发症的发生率为4.55%,两组相比差异有统计学意义(χ~2=7.69,P0.05)。结论关节镜下辅助手术可有效降低创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者时候疼痛,肩关节功能恢复效果好,且术后并发症发生率少,值得在临床上推广。     

关节镜自体骨软骨移植治疗复发性肩关节前脱位早期疗效

目的:探讨关节镜自体骨软骨移植治疗复发性肩关节前脱位的早期疗效.方法:选取2019年1月至2021年1月行关节镜自体骨软骨移植治疗复发性肩关节前脱位的患者17例,其中男12例,女5例,年龄17～55(32.88±12.33)岁.比较术前、术后6个月、末次随访时Rowe肩关节不稳评分(Rowes rating syste...     

创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位全关节镜下与切开术式治疗的临床疗效对比

[目的]比较关节镜和开放两种手术方式治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位的临床疗效。[方法]自2012年5月~2014年2月,对84例确诊为肩关节前下盂唇损伤(Bankart损伤)导致的复发性肩关节前脱位的患者进行分组随机对照研究。其中关节镜手术组42例,开放手术组42例,关节镜手术组采用关节镜下带线锚钉Bankart修复术,开放手术组则行MontgomeryJobe切开术式置入带线锚钉进行治疗。术后按标准进行肩关节康复训练。并按Bigliani肩关节评分系统、Rowe肩关节评分系统和视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)进行评估,并比较两组间差异。[结果]术后1例患者失访,其余83例获得了13~33个月(平均25.5个月)随访。其中术后1年时Bigliani评分为关节镜手术组(6.5±0.7)分和开放手术组(4.4±1.9)分,组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);Rowe评分为关节镜手术组(75.7±1.7)分和开放手术组(54.4±2.1)分,组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。另外,关节镜手术在减轻肩关节疼痛(VAS评分,P0.05)和增加肩关节活动范围(ROM)(P0.05)方面明显优于开放手术组。[结论]关节镜Bankart修复术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位临床疗效明显优于开放Bankart修复术,关节镜手术在减轻术后疼痛和增加肩关节ROM方面效果更好。     

切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳临床疗效的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析比较切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳的临床疗效差异。方法 :计算机检索PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane、中国知网、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库和维普数据库,以查找关于切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳的回顾性或前瞻性队列研究或随机对照试验。选择二分类变量,如术后复发率、术中及术后并发症发生率;以及连续型变量,如肩关节外旋活动度,Walch-Duplay评分,Rowe评分,西安大略肩关节不稳指数(Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index,WOSI)评分,术后视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),术后患者焦虑程度,手术时间和螺钉置入角度等结局指标进行分析。采用NOS偏倚风险评估标准(Cochrane协作网推荐)评价回顾性或前瞻性队列研究的文献质量,随机对照试验的质量评价采用改良Jadad量表。由2人独立进行文献筛选、文献质量评价及数据提取。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:(1)共纳入9篇文献,其中8篇回顾性队列研究和1篇前瞻性队列研究,研究证据级别较低,共纳入956例患者,其中切开Latarjet手术436例,关节镜下Latarjet手术520例。(2)Meta分析结果显示,切开组术后肩关节WOSI评分优于关节镜下组(MD=93.74,95%CI:26.00~161.49,P=0.007),且螺钉置入角度明显小于关节镜组(MD=-6.44,95%CI:-12.08~0.81,P=0.02)。(3)切开Latarjet手术复发率低于关节镜下Latarjet手术,但二者差异无统计学意义(OR=0.84,95%CI:0.23~3.05,P=0.79)。(4)在肩关节外旋活动度、Walch-Duplay评分、Rowe评分、术后视觉模VAS评分、术后患者焦虑程度和手术时间等方面切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术之间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳均能取得良好的临床疗效,且术后复发脱位率及并发症较低。切开和镜下Latarjet均为治疗肩关节前向不稳的可靠手术方式。但镜下手术较切开手术学习曲线长,需要一定量的手术积累,因此临床医生可根据手术技术熟练程度、喜好和患者的情况等因素选择镜下或切开手术。但研究中所纳入的文献皆为队列研究,证据等级不高,缺少随机对照试验,且样本量较小,未来仍需要大样本量、高证据等级的随机对照研究来确定两者之间的疗效差异。     

关节镜手术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位的疗效研究

目的研究分析关节镜手术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者的临床疗效。方法选取2013年1月至2017年6月本院收治的创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者共80例,治疗医师按照数字表法将所有患者随即评分为A、B两组,A组行关节镜手术治疗,B组行常规开放手术治疗。观察两组患者术前、术后6个月,术后12个月视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS);根据Bigliani肩关节失稳修复术后稳定评分系统和Rowe评分量表对患者术后12个月的肩关节功能恢复进行评估,Rowe评分后分数越高,肩关节功能恢复效果越好。结果 80例患者均获得随访,随访时间12~36个月,平均19.71±2.49个月,术后所有切口均已Ⅰ期愈合,手术治疗后并未肩关节脱位复发。两组患者术后12个月Bigliani肩关节稳性评分比较,A组各项评分与总分数均明显高于B组(P0.05);A、B两组患者术前VAS评分无显著差异(P0.05),术后6个月及12个月,A组的VAS评分均明显低于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);术后12个月的Rowe肩关节评分比较,A组的Rowe评分总分明显高于B组,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论然肩关节镜的操作难度要高于常规开放手术方法,但是应用关节镜Bankart修复术可以有效降低创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者的术后疼痛、使肩关节功能、活动程度及范围的恢复效果更佳,适合临床医师选择应用。     

关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定临床疗效的Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析比较关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定的临床疗效。方法检索自1980-06—2018-07收录在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、中国知网、万方等数据库关于比较关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定临床疗效的相关文献,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。比较关节镜手术组和开放手术组手术时间、术中神经损伤发生率、术后肩关节前方不稳定复发率、感染发生率、再手术率、恢复运动与工作患者比例,以及末次随访时Constant评分、Rowe评分。结果纳入17篇文献,共1 588例,关节镜手术组918例,开放手术组670例。Meta分析结果显示,与开放手术组比,关节镜手术组手术时间更短,术中神经损伤发生率更低,末次随访时Constant评分更高,术后肩关节前方不稳定复发率更高,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);但2组术后感染发生率、再手术率、恢复运动与工作患者的比例、末次随访时Rowe评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论关节镜手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定术后疗效肯定,术中神经损伤发生率低,患者术后恢复快、肩关节活动度更优。     

关节置换术与内固定术治疗老年人移位型股骨颈骨折的系统评价

目的 系统评价关节置换术和内固定术治疗老年人移位型股骨颈骨折的疗效. 方法 计算机检索Medline(1966年1月至2009年9月),荷兰医学文摘(1966年1月至2009年9月),Cochrane图书馆(2008年第1期)、中国生物医学文献数据库(截止2009年9月),中国学术期刊网(截止2009年9月),手工检索相关参考文献及中文期刊,收集所有关节置换术与内固定术比较治疗老年人(>60岁)移位型股骨颈骨折的随机对照试验(RCT),筛选出符合纳入标准的文献,对其进行严格的质量评价后应用RevMan4.2.8软件进行Meta分析. 结果 共纳入18个RCT,包含2561例患者.Meta分析结果显示,关节置换术术后2年再手术率(RR=0.13,95%CI 0.09～0.17)、5年再手术率(RR=0.11,95%CI 0.06～0.22)及术后2年主要并发症发生率(RR=0.20,95% CI 0.15～0.27)、5年主要并发症发生率(RR=0.18,95% CI 0.1 1～0.30)均低于内固定术.但二者术后1个月和2年病死率差异均无统计学意义(RR=1.42,95%CI 0.89～2.24;RR=1.01,95%CI 0.86～1.18).结论 与内固定术相比,关节置换术治疗老年人移位型股骨颈骨折可明显降低术后主要并发症的发生率及再次手术率,但两种术式的术后2年病死率无明显差异.     

肩胛上神经阻滞与肌间沟神经阻滞用于肩关节镜手术的Meta分析

目的系统评价肩胛上神经阻滞(suprascapular nerve block, SNB)与肌间沟神经阻滞(interscalene nerve block, ISB)在肩关节镜手术中应用的安全性与有效性。方法检索PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL(2018年第3期)、中国知网、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM),查找有关SNB与ISB应用于肩关节镜手术的随机对照试验,检索时限定义为建库至2018年4月。根据术后镇痛方法的不同将纳入分析的患者分为两组:SNB组和ISB组。采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果最终可纳入本系统评价的文献11篇,共978例患者。Meta分析结果显示,静止状态下ISB组PACU疼痛评分明显低于SNB组(SMD=0.89,95%CI 0.50～1.29,P0.01)。术后24 h静止状态下两组疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(SMD=-0.12,95%CI-0.25～0.01,P=0.07)。术后24 h活动状态下两组疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(SMD=-0.03,95%CI-0.56～0.50,P=0.92)。术后24 h内两组阿片类药物用量差异无统计学意义(SMD=0.06,95%CI-0.18～0.29,P=0.62)。SNB组PONV发生率明显低于ISB组(RR=0.56,95%CI 0.34～0.93,P=0.02)。SNB组Horner综合征发生率明显低于ISB组(RR=0.05,95%CI 0.01～0.23,P0.01)。SNB组声音嘶哑发生率明显低于ISB组(RR=0.39,95%CI 0.19～0.81,P=0.01)。SNB组呼吸困难发生率明显低于ISB组(RR=0.25,95%CI 0.11～0.57,P0.01)。结论与肌间沟神经阻滞比较,肩胛上神经阻滞能够为肩关节镜手术患者提供类似的术后镇痛效果且安全性更高,但在麻醉复苏期间镇痛效果欠佳。     

Hill-Sachs损伤伴肩关节前方不稳的镜下手术治疗

[目的]探讨关节镜下盂唇修补联合Remplissage技术治疗伴有Hill-Sachs缺损的肩关节前方不稳的临床效果。[方法]2012年2月~2015年2月,60例复发性肩关节前方不稳接受关节镜下盂唇修补联合Remplissage手术治疗,其中男50例,女10例。手术时平均年龄29.30岁(21.50~45.80岁)。所有病例术前均证实存在前方盂唇损伤和明显的Hill-Sachs损伤,所有患者均由同一名医生施行关节镜下手术。[结果]术前肩关节不稳ISIS评分(3.80±0.70)分。平均随访时间16.6个月(12~23个月)。所有患者术后肩关节前屈上举、内旋及体侧外旋活动度与术前无明显差异。ASES评分由术前的(85.23±13.45)分增加至末次随访时的(94.11±8.16)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。Constant-Murley评分由术前的(95.92±3.41)分增加至末次随访时的(98.94±2.40)分,两时间点差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01);Rowe评分由术前的(42.12±4.92)分增加至末次随访时的(88.11±3.55)分,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01)。末次随访未发现有再次肩关节脱位者。[结论]关节镜下前方关节囊修补联合Remplissage手术治疗合并Hill-Sachs缺损的临床效果满意,能够有效重建肩关节功能,避免术后再脱位的发生。     

两种手术方法治疗习惯性肩关节前下脱位的比较

目的 对比研究小切口改良Bristow手术和关节镜下带线锚钉修复Bankart损伤治疗肩关节习惯性前下脱位的临床疗效.方法 2004年6月至2008年1月对20例习惯性肩关节前下脱位患者根据其经济状况进行分组,11例采用小切口改良Bristow手术,为小切13组;9例采用关节镜下带线锚钉垂直褥式缝合修复Bankart损伤,为关节镜组.回顾分析两组的手术时间、术后Rowe肩关节功能修正评分;观察两组的复发率与并发症发生情况.结果 手术时间:小切口组平均为45 min,关节镜组平均为51min.术后Rowe肩关节修正评分:小切口组为80～95分,关节镜组为75～94分.小切口组11例患者术后获6～48个月(平均15.8个月)随访.关节镜组9例患者术后获18～38个月(平均26个月)随访.两组结果全为优,优良率为100%,随访期间均无复发及并发症发牛.结论 小切口改良Bristow手术与关节镜下Bankart损伤修复手术临床效果无明显差别,均较满意,且具有手术切口小、创伤小、手术时间短等优点.前者手术易于临床普及.     

Arthroscopic compared with open repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND: Both arthroscopic and open surgical repairs are utilized for the management of anterior glenohumeral instability. To determine the evidence supporting the relative effectiveness of these two approaches, we conducted a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of all reports comparing arthroscopic and open repairs. METHODS: A systematic analysis of eighteen published or presented studies was performed to determine if there were significant differences between the two approaches with regard to recurrence (recurrent dislocation, subluxation, and/or apprehension and/or a reoperation for instability), return to work and/or sports, and Rowe scores. We also performed subgroup analysis to determine if the quality of the study or the arthroscopic technique influenced the results. RESULTS: We identified four randomized controlled trials, ten controlled clinical trials, and four other comparative studies. Results were influenced both by the quality of the study and by the arthroscopic technique. Meta-analysis revealed that, compared with open methods, arthroscopic repairs were associated with significantly higher risks of recurrent instability (p < 0.00001, relative risk = 2.37, 95% confidence interval = 1.66 to 3.38), recurrent dislocation (p < 0.0001, relative risk = 2.74, 95% confidence interval = 1.75 to 4.28), and a reoperation (p = 0.002, relative risk = 2.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.35 to 3.99). When considered alone, arthroscopic suture anchor techniques were associated with significantly higher risks of recurrent instability (p = 0.01, relative risk = 2.25, 95% confidence interval = 1.21 to 4.17) and recurrent dislocation (p = 0.004, relative risk = 2.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.35 to 4.92) than were open methods. Arthroscopic approaches were also less effective than open methods with regard to enabling patients to return to work and/or sports (p = 0.03, relative risk = 0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.77 to 0.99). On the other hand, analysis of the randomized clinical trials indicated that arthroscopic repairs were associated with higher Rowe scores (p = 0.002, standardized mean difference = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.16 to 0.70) than were open methods. Similarly, analysis of the arthroscopic suture anchor techniques alone showed the Rowe scores to be higher (p = 0.04, standardized mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.56) than those associated with open methods. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence indicates that arthroscopic approaches are not as effective as open approaches in preventing recurrent instability or enabling patients to return to work. Arthroscopic approaches resulted in better function as reflected by the Rowe scores in the randomized clinical trials. The study design and the arthroscopic technique had substantial effects on the results of the analysis.     

Can arthroscopic Bankart repairs using suture anchors restore equivalent stability to open repairs in the management of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation? A meta-analysis

Background

Recently, arthroscopic Bankart repairs have become much more popular than open repairs for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. However, it is unclear whether the modern arthroscopic Bankart repairs using suture anchors could restore equivalent stability to open repairs. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare arthroscopic Bankart repairs using suture anchors and open repairs in regard to clinical outcomes.

切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定疗效的Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析比较切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定的临床疗效差异。 方法检索包括国内、外1954年1月至2018年1月已发表的临床对照研究。所检索的数据库包括Embase、Pubmed、Central、Cinahl、PQDT（ProQuest Dissertations and Theses）、中国知网、维普、万方、Cochrane Library、CBM （China Biology Medicine）等数据库。中文检索的关键词为切开、开放、关节镜、Latarjet,检索策略为Latarjet并且切开或关节镜或开放。英文检索的关键词为Open、Arthroscopy、Latarjet,检索策略为Latarjet AND Open OR Arthroscopic。提取数据后,采用Review Manager 5.3软件进行数据分析,比较关节镜下与开放式Latarjet手术间的疗效差异。 结果依据以上检索策略,共检索到相关文献887篇,并最终纳入7篇外文文献。通过比较发现,在Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定时,开放式组术后Rowe评分优于关节镜下组[95% CI, （0.03, 3.25）, P=0.05],而且开放式组术后骨块移位情况[95% CI（0.12, 0.88）, P=0.03]及患者焦虑程度[95% CI（0.20, 0.75）, P=0.005]均少于关节镜下组,其差异具有统计学意义。其余结局指标术后Walch-Duplay评分[95% CI（-9.57, 10.65）, P=0.92];术后肩关节活动度[95% CI（-2.32, 7.64）, P=0.30];术中及术后各种并发症发生率[95% CI（0.42, 3.39）, P=0.74]、[95% CI（0.14, 2.49）, P=0.48]、[95% CI（0.77, 14.09）, P=0.11]、[95% CI（0.46, 4.89）, P=0.51]、[95% CI（0.12, 0.88）, P=0.03]、[95% CI（0.12, 7.22）, P=0.94] ;术后复发率[95% CI（0.21, 3.56）, P=0.85];术后视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS） [95% CI（-0.25, 2.92）, P=0.10];手术所需时间[95% CI（-70.10, 11.81）, P=0.10]两组间差异均无统计学意义。 结论开放式与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定均能取得良好的治疗效果,且并发症及复发率相当。虽然开放式组在术后Rowe评分、术后骨块移位情况和患者焦虑程度三个指标上均优于关节镜下组,但是关节镜手术仍不失为是一种安全可行的治疗选择。     

The effectiveness of arthroscopic stabilisation for failed open shoulder instability surgery

We identified ten patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of anterior shoulder stabilisation between 1999 and 2005. Their results were compared with 15 patients, matched for age and gender, who had a primary arthroscopic stabilisation during the same period. At a mean follow-up of 37 and 36 months, respectively, the scores for pain and shoulder function improved significantly between the pre-operative and follow-up visits in both groups (p = 0.002), with no significant difference between them (p = 0.4). The UCLA and Rowe shoulder scores improved significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.002, respectively), with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.6). Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to recurrent instability showed no differences between the groups (p = 0.2). These results suggest that arthroscopic revision anterior shoulder stabilisation is as reliable as primary arthroscopic stabilisation for patients who have had previous open surgery for recurrent anterior instability.     

Surgical treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability in american football players

BACKGROUND: American football players have been reported to be at high risk for postoperative instability after arthroscopic stabilization of anterior shoulder instability. While some authors have recommended open methods of stabilization in athletes who play contact sports, there are few data in the literature showing more favorable results with use of an open technique. We reviewed the results of an open technique of anterior shoulder stabilization in fifty-eight American football players after a minimum of two years of follow-up. METHODS: Fifty-eight American football players underwent open stabilization with use of a standardized technique for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Forty-seven patients had recurrent dislocations, and the remaining eleven had recurrent subluxations. The average age of the patients was 18.2 years, and the average duration of follow-up was thirty-seven months. Patients were evaluated according to the shoulder scoring system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and with use of the shoulder instability score described by Rowe and Zarins. RESULTS: There were no postoperative dislocations. Postoperative subluxation occurred in two patients, neither of whom had had a dislocation prior to the operation. Forward flexion and external rotation returned to within 5 of those of the contralateral shoulder in forty-nine patients. The average score according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons was 97.0 points, and the average Rowe and Zarins score was 93.6 points. Fifty-five patients had a good or excellent result, and fifty-two of the fifty-eight returned to playing football for at least one year. One patient was forced to stop playing because of recurrent instability. CONCLUSIONS: Open stabilization is a predictable method of restoring shoulder stability in American football players while maintaining a range of motion approximating that found after arthroscopic stabilization. Postoperative stability appears to be superior to that reported after arthroscopic techniques in this population of patients.     

Arthroscopic revision of Bankart repair

The success of revision surgery for failed Bankart repair is not well known. This purpose of this study was to report the success rates achieved using arthroscopic techniques to revise failed Bankart repairs. Twelve arthroscopic revision Bankart repairs were performed on patients with recurrent unidirectional shoulder instability after open or arthroscopic Bankart repair. Follow-up was available on 11 of the 12 patients at a mean of 34.4 months (range, 25-56 months). The surgical findings, possible modes of failure, shoulder scores (Rowe score, University of California Los Angeles [UCLA], Simple Shoulder Test), and clinical outcome were evaluated. Various modes of failure were recognized during revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Good-to-excellent results were obtained in 8 patients (73%) undergoing revision stabilization according to Rowe and UCLA scoring. A subluxation or dislocation event occurred in 3 (27%) of the 11 patients at a mean of 8.7 months (range, 6-12 months) postoperatively. Arthroscopic revision Bankart repairs are technically challenging procedures but can be used to achieve stable, pain-free, functional shoulders with return to prior sport. Owing to limited follow-up and the small number of patients in this study, we were unable to conclude any pattern of failure or selection criteria for this procedure.     

Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND: The higher failure rates reported with arthroscopic stabilization of traumatic, recurrent anterior shoulder instability compared with open stabilization remain a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repairs with the use of suture anchors and to identify risk factors related to postoperative recurrence of shoulder instability. METHODS: Ninety-one consecutive patients underwent arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent anterior traumatic shoulder instability. The mean age (and standard deviation) at the time of surgery was 26.4 +/- 5.4 years. Seventy-one patients were male. Seventy-nine patients were involved in sports (forty, in high-risk sports). Capsulolabral reattachment and capsule retensioning was performed with use of absorbable suture anchors (mean, 4.3 anchors; range, two to seven anchors). All patients were prospectively followed, and, at the time of the last review, the patients were examined and assessed functionally by independent observers. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of thirty-six months, fourteen patients (15.3%) experienced recurrent instability: six sustained a frank dislocation and eight reported a subluxation. The mean delay to recurrence was 17.6 months. The risk of postoperative recurrence was significantly related to the presence of a bone defect, either on the glenoid side (a glenoid compression-fracture; p = 0.01) or on the humeral side (a large Hill-Sachs lesion; p = 0.05). By contrast, a glenoid separation-fracture was not associated with postoperative recurrent dislocation or subluxation. Recurrence of instability was significantly higher in patients with inferior shoulder hyperlaxity (p = 0.03) and/or anterior shoulder hyperlaxity (p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, the presence of glenoid bone loss and inferior hyperlaxity led to a 75% recurrence rate (p < 0.001). Lastly, the number of suture-anchors was critical: patients who had three anchors or fewer were at higher risk for recurrent instability (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability, patients with bone loss or with shoulder hyperlaxity are at risk for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. At least four anchor points should be used to obtain secure shoulder stabilization.