Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Provides Satisfactory Outcomes for Both Central-Track and Peripheral-Track Lesions in Noncontact Athletes With a Minimum 8-Year Follow-up


Creative Commons License

Tosun M. F., Oklaz E. B., Okutan A. E., Aral F., Eren T. K., Tosun S. N., ...Daha Fazla

ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, cilt.13, sa.12, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 13 Sayı: 12
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1177/23259671251398482
  • Dergi Adı: ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: In recent years, on-track lesions have been subclassified as peripheral- and central-track lesions based on the Hill-Sachs lesion occupancy within the glenoid track. Studies have stated that arthroscopic Bankart repair can be performed in noncontact athletes with on-track lesions, regardless of whether they are classified as peripheral or central track. However, this assumption currently remains theoretical and requires confirmation or refutation through clinical follow-up studies.

Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of peripheral- and central-track lesions on long-term clinical outcomes in a homogeneous cohort of noncontact athletes undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. It was hypothesized that arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory long-term outcomes for both central-track and peripheral-track lesions in noncontact athletes.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for shoulder instability from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with a glenoid defect <25%, on-track lesions, and participation in noncontact sports were included in the study. Patients were classified as having peripheral-track lesions (lesion in the medial one-fourth of the glenoid track) and central-track lesions (lesion in the lateral three-fourths of the glenoid track). The 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, redislocation rates, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and visual analog scale scoring systems.

Results: The study included 101 patients: 62 with central-track lesions (mean +/- SD; age, 26.6 +/- 8.7 years; follow-up, 9.1 +/- 1.2 years) and 39 with peripheral-track lesions (mean +/- SD; age, 25.9 +/- 6.9 years; follow-up, 8.8 +/- 1.2 years). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (P = .162), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (P = .524), or visual analog scale (P = .754) scoring systems. Additionally, redislocation rates and return-to-sport proportions were similar between both groups, with rates of 13% and 15% for redislocation (P = .471) and 82% and 80% for return to sports (P = .461), respectively.

Conclusion: In patients with shoulder instability who participate in noncontact sports and have on-track lesions, arthroscopic Bankart repair provides satisfactory long-term clinical outcomes regardless of whether the lesion is classified as peripheral track or central track.