Can capsular plication compensate the lack of one suture anchor in an arthroscopic three suture anchor Bankart repair? A comparative study

Özet

Objective: The aim of thisstudywas tocomparethe complication ratesand clinical resultsof labralrepair with two suture anchors and capsular plication, and labral repair with three suture anchor fixation in artroscopic Bankart surgery. Methods: Sixty-nine patients (60 males, 9 females; mean age: 28.2 ± 7.8 years (range: 16e50)) who had undergone arthroscopic repair of a labral Bankart lesion were evaluated. Group A underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair with three knotless suture anchors, while group B underwent a modified arthroscopic Bankart repair with two knotless suture anchors and an additional capsular plication procedure. The mean follow-up was 52.5 months. Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), Rowe Score (RS), modified UCLA Shoulder Score (mUSS) and range of motion (ROM) were used as outcome measures. Results: In both groups, a significant improvement was detected in functional outcomes at postoperative last follow-up compared to the preoperative period. No statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05) in clinical scores (CSS; Group A: 89.7, Group B: 80.2) (RS; Group A: 88.2, Group B: 80.2) (mUSS; Group A: 26.3, Group B: 25.7) external rotation loss (At neutral; Group A: 4.5, Group B: 5.2. At abduction; Group A: 4.3, Group B: 5.7) and recurrence rates (Group A: 13.3%, Group B: 20.8%). Although the difference was not statistically significant, the recurrence rate was higher in group B (20.8%), compared to group A (13.3%), despite the shorter average follow-up time of group B (p ¼ 0.417). Conclusions: Arthroscopic repair of labral Bankart lesions with both techniques showed good functional outcomes and stability at the latest follow-up. Higher recurrence rate despite the shorter average followup of group B suggests that two anchor usage might not be sufficient for Bankart repair in terms of better stability and less recurrence risk.