Editorial Commentary: Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Is Not Recommended: The Sad Country Song We Just Can't Quit.
editorial · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 36872032.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.12.005.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The approach to revision after an arthroscopic Bankart is a controversial topic. Several studies have shown an increased failure after revision compared with primary procedures, and many papers have recommended an open approach with or without bone augmentation. It seems intuitive that if an approach fails, that we ought to try a different one. And yet we do not. When facing this condition, it is far more common that we talk ourselves into performing another arthroscopic Bankart. It's relatively easy, familiar, and comforting. We find a reason to give this operation one more chance due to some patient-specific factor, like bone loss, number of anchors, or contact athlete status. Recent research shows that none of these factors matter, yet many of us find something that leads us to conclude that in our hands, with this patient, this time, the surgery will work. As data continue to emerge, the indications for this approach continue to narrow. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a reason to go back to this operation as our best choice for the failed arthroscopic Bankart.
Medical subject headings
- Athletes
- Upper Extremity