On-the-Edge Anchor Placement May Be Protective Against Glenoid Rim Erosion After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared to On-the-Face Anchor Placement.

Abstract

This retrospective study aimed to compare the effects of 2 different anchoring placements on glenoid rim erosion after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). Shoulders that underwent ABR from January 2013 to July 2020 were divided into 2 groups according to anchor placement (on-the-face, group F; on-the-edge, group E). We retrospectively calculated the percent change of glenoid width (Δ) on the first postoperative computed tomography scan (CT; performed within 6 months) and second postoperative CT (performed at 6 to 12 months) relative to the width on the preoperative CT and compared percent changes between the 2 groups. Also, we investigated the influence of preoperative glenoid structures (normal, erosion, bony Bankart) and the postoperative recurrence rate. We examined 225 shoulders in 214 patients (group F, n = 151; group E, n = 74). At first CT, anchoring placement was significantly associated with postoperative decrease of glenoid width (group F, -7.6% ± 7.9%; group E, -0.1% ± 9.7%; P < .0001). The difference between groups F and E was significant in shoulders with a preoperative glenoid defect (bony Bankart, -6.6% ± 8.8% vs 2.5% ± 11.2%, respectively; P < .0001; erosion, -6.6% ± 6.2% vs -2.6% ± 5.3%, respectively; P = .03). In 112 shoulders, CT was performed twice; Δ was -6.9% ± 7.3% in group F (n = 64) and -1.7% ± 10.1% in group E (n = 48; P = .005) at the first CT and -3.2% ± 10.0% and 1.0% ± 10.6% (P = .10), respectively, at the second CT, indicating recovery of glenoid width in both groups. The postoperative recurrence rate in patients with at least 2 years' follow-up was 14.7% in group F and 14.6% in group E. In the early stage after ABR, on-the-edge glenoid anchor placement was associated with less glenoid rim erosion than on-the-face anchor placement. Level III, retrospective comparative trial.