Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20%

Background: There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss Purpose: To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated. Results: In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level (P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (+/- SD) of 41 +/- 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 +/- 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively (P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 +/- 3 points to 93.3 +/- 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 +/- 3 points to 93.7 +/- 4 points postoperatively (P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group (P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group (P = .55). Conclusion: In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.