Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Has a Lower Rate of Recurrent Instability Compared to Arthroscopic Bankart Repair While Otherwise Maintaining a Similar Complication and Safety Profile

Objectives: The primary purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and type of complications, including subluxation, infection, hardware complication, graft/glenoid fracture, chondrolysis, neurovascular deficits and stiffness following an Arthroscopic Bankart Repair (ABR) or an Arthroscopic Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction (AAGR) using a distal tibia allograft for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Secondary purposes were to determine the frank dislocation rate and the associations of post-operative complications with demographic pa-tient factors. Methods: Demographic and clinical data were reviewed using means +/- standard deviations or frequencies in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability who underwent either an ABR or an AAGR. Post-operative patient records were analysed to identify any post-operative complications. The numerical variables of the two groups were compared using the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables and compli-cations were tested using the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or the two-sided Monte Carlo test with a sig-nificance level of 0.05.Results: We included 174 patients in this cohort, with 61.5% of patients receiving ABR and 38.5% receiving AAGR. Most of our patients were male (70.1%) with an average age of 23.41 +/- 8.26 years in the ABR group and 29.37 +/- 13.54 years in the AAGR group (p = 0.001). The two groups were similar with respect to their post-operative complication rates when excluding frank dislocation (ABR: 11%, AAGR: 12%). The AAGR group had statistically significantly higher rates of hardware removal compared to the ABR group (p = 0.004). The ABR group had 25 post-operative frank dislocations, with none reported in the AAGR cohort (p < 0.001). The total complication rate for each procedure was found to be 35% for ABR and 12% for AAGR.Conclusion: AAGR has a comparable safety profile to the ABR when assessing post-operative complications such as subluxation, infection, graft/glenoid fracture, chondrolysis, neurovascular deficits and stiffness. AAGR is superior to ABR with respect to rates of recurrent instability and should be considered as a first-line treatment in certain patients with specific risk factors such as younger age, competitive contact sports participation, and higher number of instability events pre-operatively.Level of evidence: Level III.