Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 3929–3936 | Cite as

Ten percent re-dislocation rate 13 years after the arthroscopic Bankart procedure

  • Marianne Larsen van Gastel
  • Nienke W. Willigenburg
  • Lea M. Dijksman
  • Robert Lindeboom
  • Michel P. J. van den Bekerom
  • Victor P. M. van der Hulst
  • W. Jaap Willems
  • Derek F. P. van DeurzenEmail author



The aim of the present study was to determine the long-term outcome after the arthroscopic Bankart procedure, in terms of recurrent instability, shoulder function, glenohumeral arthropathy and patient satisfaction.


Patients who underwent the arthroscopic Bankart procedure between January 1999 and the end of December 2005 were invited to complete a set of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and visit the hospital for clinical and radiological assessment. PROMs included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) and additional questions on shoulder instability and patient satisfaction. Clinical assessment included the apprehension test and the Constant–Murley score. The Samilson–Prieto classification was used to assess arthropathy on standard radiographs. The primary outcome was a re-dislocation that needed reduction. Secondary outcomes in terms of recurrent instability included patient-reported subluxation and a positive apprehension test.


Of 104 consecutive patients, 71 patients with a mean follow-up of 13.1 years completed the PROMs, of which 53 patients (55 shoulders) were also available for clinical and radiological assessment. Re-dislocations had occurred in 7 shoulders (9.6%). Subluxations occurred in 23 patients (31.5%) and the apprehension test was positive in 30 (54.5%) of the 55 shoulders examined. Median functional outcomes were 236 for WOSI, 45 for OSIS, and 103 for the normalized Constant–Murley score. Of all 71 patients (73 shoulders), 29 (39.7%) reported being completely satisfied, 33 (45.2%) reported being mostly satisfied and 8 (11%) reported being somewhat satisfied. Glenohumeral arthropathy was observed in 33 (60%) of the shoulders.


Despite 10% re-dislocations and frequent other signs of recurrent instability, shoulder function and patient satisfaction at 13 years after arthroscopic Bankart repair were good.

Level of evidence

Level IV.


Shoulder Recurrent instability Arthroscopic Bankart procedure Arthropathy 



The radiologic examination of our patients was funded by Teaching Hospital at OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the MEC-U (Medical Research Ethics Committees United).


  1. 1.
    Leroux T, Wasserstein D, Veillette C, Khoshbin A, Henry P, Chahal J, Austin P, Mahomed N, Ogilvie-Harris D (2013) Epidemiology of primary anterior shoulder dislocation requiring closed reduction in Ontario, Canada. Am J Sports Med 42:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brophy RH, Marx RG (2009) The treatment of traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: nonoperative and surgical treatment. Arthroscopy 25:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan CD, Bodenstab AB (1987) Arthroscopic Bankart suture repair: technique and early results. Arthroscopy 3:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randelli P, Ragone V, Carminati S, Cabitza P (2012) Risk factors for recurrence after Bankart repair a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2129–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castagna A, Markopoulos N, Conti M, Rose GD, Papadakou E, Garofalo R (2010) Arthroscopic Bankart suture-anchor repair: radiological and clinical outcome at minimum 10 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38:2012–2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen L, Xu Z, Peng J, Xing F, Wang H, Xiang Z (2015) Effectiveness and safety of arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation: a meta-analysis of clinical trial data. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Linde JA, van Kampen DA, Terwee CB, Dijksman LM, KleinJan G, Willems WJ (2011) Long-term results after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization using suture anchors: an 8- to 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 39:2396–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flinkkilä T, Knape R, Sirniö K, Ohtonen P, Leppilahti J (2018) Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair: minimum 10 years of follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plath JE, Aboalata M, Seppel G, Juretzko J, Waldt S, Vogt S, Imhoff AB (2015) Prevalence of and risk factors for dislocation arthropathy: radiological long-term outcome of arthroscopic Bankart repair in 100 shoulders at an average 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 43:1084–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hovelius L, Saeboe M (2009) Neer Award 2008: arthropathy after primary anterior shoulder dislocation-223 shoulders prospectively followed up for twenty-five years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aboalata M, Plath JE, Seppel G, Juretzko J, Vogt S, Imhoff AB (2017) Results of arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior-inferior shoulder instability at 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 45:782–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Linde JA, van Kampen DA, van Beers LWAH, van Deurzen DFP, Terwee CB, Willems WJ (2015) The Oxford Shoulder Instability Score; validation in Dutch and first-time assessment of its smallest detectable change. J Orthop Surg Res 10:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Linde JA, Willems WJ, van Kampen DA, van Beers LWAH, van Deurzen DFP, Terwee CB (2014) Measurement properties of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index in Dutch patients with shoulder instability. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:242–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samilson RL, Prieto V (1983) Dislocation arthropathy of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:456–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calandra JJ, Baker CL, Uribe J (1989) The incidence of Hill–Sachs lesions in initial anterior shoulder dislocations. Arthroscopy 5:254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bigliani LU, Newton PM, Steinmann SP, Connor PM, Mcllveen SJ (1998) Glenoid rim lesions associated with recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. Am J Sports Med 26:41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brand H, van der Linde JA, van Deurzen DFP, van den Bekerom MPJ (2017) Lacking evidence for rehabilitation following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review. J ISAKOS. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerometta A, Rosso C, Klouche S, Hardy P (2016) Arthroscopic Bankart shoulder stabilization in athletes: return to sports and functional outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1877–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weel H, Tromp W, Krekel PR, Randelli P, van Den Bekerom MPJ, van Deurzen DFP (2016) International survey and surgeons preferences in diagnostic work-up towards treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:741–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hohmann E, Tetsworth K, Glatt V (2017) Open versus arthroscopic surgical treatment for anterior shoulder dislocation: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis over the past 20 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:1873–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zimmermann S, Scheyerer M, Farshad M, Catanzaro S, Rahm S, Gerber C (2016) Long-term restoration of anterior shoulder stability: a retrospective analysis of arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1954–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horst K, Von Harten R, Weber C, Andruszkow H, Pfeifer R, Dienstknecht T, Pape HC (2014) Assessment of coincidence and defect sizes in Bankart and Hill–Sachs lesions after anterior shoulder dislocation: a radiological study. Br J Radiol 87:20130673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M, Kon Y, Tsuchiya A (2003) Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A:878–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Linde JA, van Wijngaarden R, Somford MP, van Deurzen DFP, van den Bekerom MPJ (2015) The Bristow–Latarjet procedure, a historical note on a technique in comeback. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shitara H, Shimoyama D, Sasaki T, Hamano N, Ichinose T, Yamamoto A, Kobayashi T, Osawa T, Iizuka H, Hanakawa T, Tsushima Y, Takagishi K (2015) The neural correlates of shoulder apprehension: a functional MRI study. PLoS ONE 10:e0137387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ilg A, Bankes MJK, Emery RJH (2001) The intra- and inter-observer reliability of the Samilson and Prieto grading system of glenohumeral arthropathy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marcano-Fernández FA, Balaguer-Castro M, Fillat-Gomà F, Ràfols-Perramon O, Torrens C, Torner P (2018) Teaching patients how to reduce a shoulder dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Larsen van Gastel
    • 1
  • Nienke W. Willigenburg
    • 1
  • Lea M. Dijksman
    • 2
  • Robert Lindeboom
    • 3
  • Michel P. J. van den Bekerom
    • 1
  • Victor P. M. van der Hulst
    • 4
  • W. Jaap Willems
    • 1
    • 5
  • Derek F. P. van Deurzen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsOLVGAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Quality and Safety Department, Unit Value-Based HealthcareSt. Antonius HospitalNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and BioinformaticsAcademic Medical Center, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyOLVGAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Lairesse KliniekAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations