Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arthroscopy. 2014 Oct;30(10):1246-53. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.026. Epub 2014 Jul 23.

An analysis of technical aspects of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure as performed in the United States.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.. Electronic address: robert.burks@hsc.utah.edu.
2
Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the intersurgeon variation in technical aspects of performing an arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS:

A unique approach with experienced equipment representatives from 3 different arthroscopic companies was used. Experienced representatives were identified by DePuy Mitek, Smith & Nephew, and Arthrex and filled out questionnaires on how their surgeons performed arthroscopic Bankart procedures. This was performed in a blinded fashion with no knowledge of the identities of the specific surgeons or representatives by us. A video on different aspects of the procedure was observed by each representative before filling out the questionnaire to help standardize responses. Data were collected using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture). Data were analyzed as an infrequent observation with 0% to 30% of representatives reporting the observation; sometimes, 31% to 70% reporting the observation; and often, greater than 70% of representatives reporting.

RESULTS:

Seventy-six percent of representatives had 6 or more years of arthroscopic experience. Forty-three percent of representatives reported that their surgeons use 3 portals for the procedure often. Forty-four percent reported that viewing was performed exclusively from the posterior portal while the surgeon was performing the repair. Seventy-three percent reported that the Hill-Sachs lesion was observed often, and 61% reported that the posterior labrum was evaluated often before the repair. Only 25% of representatives reported that the Bankart lesion was extensively released and mobilized often. Thirty-three percent reported 3 anchors as being used often. Seventy-five percent reported biocomposite anchors as being used often. Single-loaded anchors were reported as being used often by 47%. Eighty-one percent reported that sutures were placed in a simple fashion. Eighty-three percent reported the use of any posterior sutures or anchors for additional plication as infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is significant variation in performance of the arthroscopic Bankart repair in the United States. Areas of concern include completeness of the diagnostic examination, the adequacy of capsulolabral mobilization, variation in the use of accessory portals, and inconsistent use of additional capsular or labral plication or fixation.

PMID:
25064758
DOI:
10.1016/j.arthro.2014.05.026
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center