
==== Front
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
0936-8051
1434-3916
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39105843
5466
10.1007/s00402-024-05466-4
Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
Impact of size and fragmentation of the anteroinferior glenoid rim on clinical and functional outcomes of non-operatively treated Bony Bankart lesions in middle-aged population
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5610-4138
Secci Gregorio gregorio.secci@unifi.it

123
Lazzarini Francesco 1
Distefano Marco 1
Porciatti Tommaso 1
Tonelli Filippo 1
Mugnaini Marco 1
Zanna Luigi 1
1 grid.415194.c 0000 0004 1759 6488 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Santa Maria Annunziata Hospital, ASL Toscana Centro - Via Antella 58, 50012 Bagno a Ripoli, Italy
2 grid.24704.35 0000 0004 1759 9494 Department of Shoulder Surgery, AOU Careggi, University Hospital of Florence, Florence, Italy
3 https://ror.org/04jr1s763 grid.8404.8 0000 0004 1757 2304 University of Florence, Florence, Italy
6 8 2024
6 8 2024
2024
144 8 35333539
13 10 2023
16 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Introduction

The optimal treatment approach for Bony Bankart remains a subject of considerable debate among shoulder surgeons. Existing literature highlights low recurrence rates and high patient satisfaction with nonoperative treatment, particularly in the middle-aged population. This study aimed to evaluate the recurrence rate of dislocation, as well as the clinical and functional outcomes in middle-aged individuals treated nonoperatively following an acute bony Bankart fracture. Additionally, the impact of glenoid rim size and fragmentation on the treatment outcome was investigated.

Material and methods

A prospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients aged over 50 with nonoperatively treated bony Bankart fractures, ensuring a minimum follow-up of 24 months. The study population was categorized based on fragment size (small and medium) according to Kim classification and glenoid rim fragmentation (type 1b and 1c) according to Scheibel classification. Data including UCLA score, Rowe score, recurrence rate, clinical instability, and range of motion (ROM) were collected and analyzed.

Results

The average UCLA and Rowe scores were 32.15 ± 2.85 and 93.85 ± 2.19, respectively, with no instances of dislocation recurrence. The affected shoulder exhibited no significant reductions in ROM compared to the contralateral side, except for a loss of external rotation (ER) (13.08° ± 7.51; p = 0.005). No differences were observed based on fragment size, although patients with multifragmented glenoid rims showed a greater loss of ER compared to those with a solitary fragment, albeit not reaching statistical significance.

Conclusion

Nonoperative treatment appears to be a viable and effective option for middle-aged individuals with bony Bankart fractures, resulting in favorable functional outcomes and a low risk of recurrence. Additionally, a notable loss of external rotation was observed in fractures with glenoid rim fragmentation.

Level of evidence

IV.

Keywords

Glenoid rim fracture
Shoulder dislocation
Non-operative treatment
Fragment size
Rim fragmentation
Università degli Studi di FirenzeOpen access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Bony Bankart fractures are fractures of the anteroinferior glenoid rim associated with shoulder dislocation [1–3]. These fractures, present in 4–70% of all the anteroinferior glenohumeral dislocation [1, 4, 5], are more prevalent in males and middle-aged patients [6, 7]. Conversely, in younger individuals, labrum lesions or isolated osteochondral avulsions are typical [4]. Bony Bankart fractures often coexist with other injuries, with traumatic rotator cuff tears being the most common, particularly in the middle-aged population [8]. Bigliani et al. first classified glenoid rim fractures in 1998, categorizing them into three groups based on radiographic evaluation [5] Recently, new classifications have emerged, considering both the size of the bone defect [9] and fragment characteristics [10, 11], using more precise diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI.

The optimal treatment for anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures remains a contentious issue among shoulder surgeons [1, 4, 11–14]. Several studies suggest that bony Bankart fractures play a crucial role in the development of recurrent shoulder instability [7, 15, 16], prompting many authors to advocate surgical intervention. Both open and arthroscopic procedures have been proposed [1, 17–24], yet a universally accepted gold standard for treatment remains elusive [17]. Conversely, some authors have reported low recurrence rates and high patient satisfaction following nonoperative treatment, especially in the middle-aged population [4, 12, 13, 25, 26].

The aims of this study were (1) to analyze the recurrence rate of dislocation following nonoperative treatment of acute bony Bankart fractures in the middle-aged population and (2) to assess clinical and functional outcomes at a minimum 24-month follow-up using the Rowe score, UCLA score, and Range of Motion (ROM). Additionally, we aimed to compare clinical scores between small-sized and medium-sized lesions and between single fragment and multifragmented glenoid rim fractures.

We hypothesize that nonoperative treatment may be a successful option for individuals over 50 years old in terms of residual instability and shoulder function recovery, with no discernible differences based on the size or quality of the fragment.

Materials and methods

A prospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients who experienced traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation associated with a nonoperatively anteroinferior glenoid margin fracture from May 2018 to March 2021. We included consecutively enrolled patient over 50 years old with fracture of the anteroinferior margin of the glenoid classified as type 1 according to the Scheibel Classification [10, 11][Table 1][Fig. 1], measured as small and medium size according to the Kim Classification [9] [Table 1], and patient with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients with the humeral head not centered after reduction, those with concomitant shoulder lesions potentially affecting post-dislocation recovery (such as brachial plexus damage, coracoid fractures, etc.), patients with a history of shoulder surgery, and Off-Track Hill-Sachs (HS) lesions according to Di Giacomo et al. [16]. were excluded. Glenoid bone loss was quantified using the “best-fit circle method” according to Sugaya et al. [27]. , employing the Syngo via web viewer software (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) [Fig. 2].

Table 1 Glenoid defects classifications

		Quantitative classification of the fragment		
Kim et al. [9]	Small-sized	< 12.5%						
	Medium-sized	> 12.5% and < 25%					
	Large-sized	> 25%						
		Qualitative classification of the fragment			
Scheibel et al. [10, 11]	Type 1	Acute fragment type-lesion				
			1a	Osteochondral avulsion lesion		
			1b	Single fragment rim fracture		
			1c	Multifragmented rim fracture		
	Type 2	Chronic fragment-type lesion				
				Malunited fragment			
	Type 3	Chronic bone loss without fragment			
			3a	bone loss < 25% (of the glenoid surface)	
			3b	bone loss > 25% (of the glenoid surface)	

Fig. 1 a Scheibel type 1b: solitary bony fragment; b Scheibel type 1c: multifragmented rim fracture, with a fragment placed in the axillary pouch

Fig. 2 Three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomography “en-face” view of the glenoid surface with a bony Bankart lesion. Though the software Syngo.via webviewer (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany), according to the “best-fit circle” method [27], the glenoid area was measured (A = 7852,5 pixel2), and the bone loss was marked (B = 714,5 pixel2). So, the bone loss size was calculated as A/B (7852,5/714,5 = 10,99%)

All patients were admitted through our Emergency Department, where a detailed clinical examination and radiological assessment, including AP and Grashey views, were conducted. In cases of shoulder dislocation, closed reduction was performed in the emergency room by an orthopedic surgeon. Imaging studies comprised radiography and computed tomography scans (CT scans) with surface-rendered 3-dimensional reconstructions [Fig. 3]. The head was considered centered on the glenoid based on the CT scan axial view with a subluxation index between 45–55% [28].

Fig. 3 a: dislocated shoulder x-ray, b: post reduction Grashey view, c: 3D reconstruction CT scan

The shoulder was immobilized in a neutral rotation sling for four weeks, removed only for wrist and elbow mobilization three times a day for 10-minute sessions. After this period, passive mobilization was allowed on the scapular plane, avoiding external rotation. Once the complete range of motion was achieved, active mobilization with muscle strengthening and external rotations were permitted. Heavy strain on the shoulder was forbidden for three months after the trauma, and patients were allowed to return to pre-injury activities. Six months after the trauma, the return to sports activities was permitted.

Follow-up evaluations

Clinical and radiographic (AP and Grashey views) follow-up was performed at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. During clinical examinations, the range of motion (ROM) was assessed, including flexion, abduction, internal rotation (IR), and external rotation (ER). ER was measured using the elbow-on-the-table method [29], and IR was assessed as per Königshausen et al. [4]. similar to the Constant score, and scored on a 0–10 points scale. The ROM of the non-dislocated shoulder was also measured, so the differential ROM between injured and uninjured shoulder was evaluated as proposed by Wieser et al. [25]. Shoulder instability was clinically evaluated using the Apprehension test, Bony Apprehension test [30], Hyperabduction test [31] and Sulcus sign in ER1. The Rowe and UCLA scores were recorded at 24-month follow-up. Since the UCLA score includes a question on patient satisfaction, patients were divided into “satisfied” and “dissatisfied”. An UCLA score greater than or equal to 27 was considered as excellent, according to the literature [32, 33].

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS statistics software (IBM: New York, United States) version 20.0. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of distributions. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, ranges as appropriate) were employed. Data were compared using Student’s T-test for parametric groups, Mann-Whitney U-test for unpaired non-parametric values, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired non-parametric data. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Twenty patients were evaluated in the study, comprising 12 males (60%) and 8 females (40%). The mean age at the time of dislocation was 66.65 ± 15.8 years old. The glenoid fracture size was small in 9 cases and medium in 11, based on the Kim classification [9]. Seven anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures were categorized as 1b type and 13 as 1c type, according to the Scheibel classification [10, 11]. The mean follow-up was 32.5 ± 7.53 months (range 24–48).

The average UCLA and Rowe scores at 24 months for the entire cohort were 32.15 ± 2.85 and 93.85 ± 2.19, respectively. Nineteen patients (95%) showed excellent UCLA values (≥ 27), and all patients (100%) were satisfied. The ROM analysis showed a mean flexion of 170° ± 18.71°, mean abduction of 170.77° ± 18.91°, mean ER1 of 61.92° ± 11.09°, and mean IR of 9.08 ± 1.04. The affected shoulder didn’t show significant reductions in ROM compared with the contralateral shoulder, except for a loss of ER (13.08° ± 7.51; p = 0.005) [Table 2]. No cases of post-traumatic instability were reported, and all patients were able to return to their work or sports activities.

Table 2 Comparison between the ROM of the dislocated shoulder with the ROM of the healthy shoulder

	Dislocated shoulder ROM (± SD)	Healthy shoulder ROM (± SD)	P value	
Flexion	170° ± 18.71°	179.23° ± 2.77°	p = 0.126	
Abduction	170.77° ± 18.91°	179.23° ± 2.77°	p = 0.253	
External Rotation	61.92° ± 11.09°	75° ± 10.60°	p = 0.005*	
Internal Rotation	9.08° ± 1.04°	9.08° ± 2.78°	p = 0.152	

No patients reported a positivity at the Sulcus sign in ER, and only 1 patient (5%) reported both apprehension, bony apprehension, and hyperabduction tests.

According to Kim calcification, the small-sized group had a mean fragment dimension of 8.27% ± 1.44, with a mean UCLA score of 32.14 ± 2.73, a Rowe score of 93.57 ± 2.44, and a mean ER1 of 12.14° ± 6.99°. The medium-sized group showed a mean fragment size of 21.13% ± 3.72%, with a mean UCLA score of 32.17 ± 3.25, a Rowe score of 94.16 ± 2.04, and a mean ER of 12.5° ± 6.89°. No statistical significance was found comparing the Kim small-sized group and Kim medium-sized group in terms of clinical scores (UCLA p = 0.989; Rowe p = 0.771; Delta ER1 p = 0.928) [Table 3].

Table 3 Comparison of clinical and functional outcome based on fragment size

Mean Values	Kim small-sized	Kim medium-sized	P value	
UCLA score	32.14 ± 2.73	32.17 ± 3.25	p = 0.989	
Rowe score	93.57 ± 2.44	94.17 ± 2.04	p = 0.7718	
Delta ER	12.14 ± 6.99	12.5 ± 6.89	p = 0.928	
UCLA score: University of California Los Angeles Score; Delta ER: Difference between dislocated shoulder external rotation and healthy shoulder external rotation

The Scheibel 1b-group had a mean UCLA score of 31.75 ± 2.66, a Rowe score of 94.37 ± 1.77, and a mean ER1 of 10.71° ± 8.86. The Scheibel 1c-group showed a mean UCLA score of 32.25 ± 3.59, a Rowe score of 92.5 ± 2.89, and a mean ER1 of 18.75° ± 8.54°. No statistical significance was found comparing Scheibel 1b and Scheibel 1c type of fragments (UCLA p = 0.215; Rowe p = 0.465; Delta ER1 p = 0.177) [Table 4].

Table 4 Comparison of clinical and functional outcome based on glenoid rim fragmentation

Mean Values	1B Scheibel type	1 C Scheibel type	P value	
UCLA score	31.75 ± 2.66	32.25 ± 3.59	p = 0.215	
Rowe score	94.37 ± 1.77	92.5 ± 2.89	p = 0.465	
Delta ER	10.71 ± 8.86	18.75 ± 8.54	p = 0.177	
UCLA score: University of California Los Angeles Score; Delta ER: Difference between dislocated shoulder external rotation and healthy shoulder external rotation

Discussion

The treatment of anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures in the middle-aged population remains a subject of debate [11, 13, 25], specifically regarding the choice between surgical and non-operative approaches. Our study contributes valuable insights, demonstrating that the non-surgical approach in middle-aged patients yields excellent outcomes, with no recurrence (0%), favorable shoulder function, and high patient satisfaction. However, a notable reduction in external rotation (13.08° ± 7.51; p = 0.005) was observed. Analysis of clinical outcomes based on fragment size and quality (Scheibel classification [10, 11]) did not reveal significant differences. Nevertheless, patients with multifragmented rim fractures (1b type loss of ER = 10.71°; 1c type loss of ER = 18.75°) exhibited lower levels of external rotation. To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing outcomes following anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures based on fragment characteristics.

In line with recent literature [3, 12, 34], our cohort demonstrated positive clinical outcomes, with average UCLA and Rowe scores of 32.15 ± 2.85 and 93.85 ± 2.19, respectively, comparable to or slightly higher than other studies. Spiegl et al. [3] reported 12 non-operatively treated anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures with an average Rowe score of 89 (range 63–100) at a 2-year follow-up. Königshausen et al. [34]. non-operatively treated 14 glenoid rim fractures with a mean fragment size of 5 mm, reporting an average Rowe score of 90.4 points (range 50–100 points). Shoulder range of motion (ROM) in our study, including a mean external rotation of 61.92° ± 11.09° and a loss of ER of 13.08° ± 7.51 compared to the healthy shoulder, was consistent with the literature [4, 12, 13, 25]. Wieser et al. [25] reported a mean ER of 60° ± 15° in their cohort of 48 patients with Ideberg 1B classification fractures following dislocation.

Maqueira et al. [13]. analyzed 14 patients with great-size fragment bony Bankart treated nonoperatively, resulting in no recurrences and high patient satisfaction, with 2 cases of ER deficit between 10 and 20°. These data suggested a good reliability of the conservative treatments in selected patients, providing optimal residual shoulder function. Notably, a similar loss of external rotation was reported in surgically treated patients. Porcellini et al. [1]. observed a mean external rotation loss of 9.7° ± 4.9° in a cohort of 48 patients with arthroscopically repaired bony Bankart fractures. It’s known [1, 21] that affecting the ER of approximately 10° did not impact the shoulder function, allowing most patients to return to sport and normal activity of daily living in line with the outcome we reported. For this reason, we feel confident in approaching the middle-aged population, who do not require high-performance shoulder function with non-surgical treatment.

Our study reported a low recurrence rate consistent with other studies in the middle-aged population [13, 25, 26, 34]. Waltenspül [26] et al. found no cases of recurrence at a 9-year follow-up after bony Bankart fracture, and Song et al. [6]. reported comparable recurrent dislocation rates between patients with and without fractures. Fujii et al. [35] performed a histologic analysis of 27 bony fragments and surrounding ligaments excised during the surgery, which revealed changes in the labral-ligamentous complex (8 out of 27 samples (29.6%) with extensive degeneration. Furthermore, Waltenspül et al. [26]. , highlighted a high healing potential of the bony fragment, emphasizing the importance of bone healing in preventing recurrence. According to our analysis, Salomonsson et al. [12]. , in a cohort of 51 patients, stated the importance of the bony fragment in this lesion, identifying age and rim fractures as the only factors lowering the risk of recurrence. They underlined the importance of bone healing in the post-dislocation process, resulting in a favorable prognostic factor.

Our findings suggest that ligamentous degeneration combined with bone healing results in a stiff bone-labral interface, leading to a functional stiffness and some loss of external rotation. Only one patient (5%) exhibited positivity in Apprehension, Bony Apprehension, and Hyperabduction tests, but interestingly, this patient did not experience any loss of range of motion. This observation supports the notion that a slight reduction in external rotation may act protectively against recurrence.

Comparing outcomes based on glenoid rim fracture size, we found no differences in clinical and functional scores, consistent with Königshausen et al.‘s findings [4] However, analyzing fragmentation according to Scheibel 1b and 1c types, patients with multifragmented glenoid rims showed greater external rotation loss compared to 1b type, although statistical significance wasn’t reached. While Scheibel et al. [11] reported a case series of 1c type bony Bankart fractures with similar Rowe scores, they identified fragments in the axillary pouch [Fig. 1B] in all cases, suggesting a potential explanation for the greater loss of external rotation due to the healing process. We believe that, since the vascularization is provided by the ligamentous-labral complex [35], the fragments remain vascularized and are able to heal [26]. So, the healing of a fragment in the axillary pouch could be the explanation for the greater loss of ER.

Despite limitations such as a small sample size, absence of CT scans for fragment healing assessment, and reliance on the best-fit circle method for quantifying glenoid bone loss [36], our study offers valuable insights. It is a prospective analysis comparing bony Bankart fractures based on fragment quality, contributing new perspectives to the conservative treatment of this injury.

Conclusions

In conclusion, nonoperative treatment appears to be a viable and effective option for patients aged 50 and above with anteroinferior glenoid rim fractures resulting from glenohumeral dislocation. This approach yields favorable functional outcomes and carries a low risk of recurrence. While a mean reduction of 13° in external rotation (ER) was observed in the majority of patients, this may serve as a protective factor against post-traumatic instability. Notably, a more substantial loss of ER was noted in fractures characterized by fragmentation of the glenoid rim, specifically Scheibel type 1c bony Bankart fractures. These findings support the consideration of nonoperative management in this patient population, emphasizing the importance of personalized treatment strategies based on fracture characteristics and patient demographics.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. FL contributed to the conception of the article. Data collection and analysis were performed by TP and FT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GS and MDS, like co-authors. Statistical analysis was performed by LZ. MM supervised the reviewed the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Data availability

All data are available in the main text and tables. Additional information can be provided if solicited.

Declarations

Ethical approval

The study and follow-up, respecting the criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki, have been approved by Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Azienda Sanitaria Locale Toscana Centro, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine.

Informed consent

We declare that there is no information in the submitted manuscript that can be used to identify patients.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Porcellini G Campi F Paladini P Arthroscopic approach to acute bony bankart lesion Arthroscopy 2002 18 764 769 10.1053/jars.2002.35266 12209435
Porcellini G, Campi F, Paladini P (2002) Arthroscopic approach to acute bony bankart lesion. Arthroscopy 18:764–769. 10.1053/jars.2002.3526612209435
2. Nolte P-C, Elrick B, Lacheta L, Millett PJ (2020) The Bony Bankart: clinical and technical considerations. 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000286
3. Spiegl UJA, Ryf C, Hepp P, Rillmann P (2013) Evaluation of a treatment algorithm for acute traumatic osseous bankart lesions resulting from first time dislocation of the shoulder with a two year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14. 10.1186/1471-2474-14-305
4. Königshausen M, Pätzholz S, Coulibaly M et al (2022) Instability and results after non-operative treatment of large anterior glenoid rim fractures: is there a correlation between fragment size or displacement and recurrence? 142:2727–2738. 10.1007/s00402-021-04020-w
5. Bigliani LU, Newton PM, Steinmann SP et al (1998) Glenoid Rim lesions Associated. with Recurrent Anterior Dislocation of the Shoulder
6. Song BM Smartt AA Wilbur RR Anteroinferior Glenoid Rim fractures are a relatively common finding in shoulder instability patients aged 50 years or older but may not portend a worse prognosis Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil 2022 4 e1813 e1819 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.07.012
Song BM, Smartt AA, Wilbur RR et al (2022) Anteroinferior Glenoid Rim fractures are a relatively common finding in shoulder instability patients aged 50 years or older but may not portend a worse prognosis. Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil 4:e1813–e1819. 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.07.012
7. Porcellini G Paladini P Campi F Paganelli M Long-term outcome of acute versus chronic bony bankart lesions managed arthroscopically Am J Sports Med 2007 35 2067 2072 10.1177/0363546507305011 17978001
Porcellini G, Paladini P, Campi F, Paganelli M (2007) Long-term outcome of acute versus chronic bony bankart lesions managed arthroscopically. Am J Sports Med 35:2067–2072. 10.1177/036354650730501117978001
8. Dai F Xiang M Yang J song Injury mechanism of Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Associated with Glenoid and Greater Tuberosity fractures: a study based on fracture morphology Orthop Surg 2020 12 1421 1429 10.1111/os.12767 32812705
Dai F, Xiang M, Yang J, song et al (2020) Injury mechanism of Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Associated with Glenoid and Greater Tuberosity fractures: a study based on fracture morphology. Orthop Surg 12:1421–1429. 10.1111/os.1276732812705
9. Kim YK, Cho SH, Son WS, Moon SH (2013) Arthroscopic repair of small and medium. 42:86–94. 10.1177/0363546513509062. -Sized Bony Bankart Lesions
10. Scheibel M Kraus N Gerhardt C Haas NP Anteriore Glenoidranddefekte Der Schulter Orthopade 2009 38 41 53 10.1007/S00132-008-1354-X/METRICS 19198747
Scheibel M, Kraus N, Gerhardt C, Haas NP (2009) Anteriore Glenoidranddefekte Der Schulter. Orthopade 38:41–53. 10.1007/S00132-008-1354-X/METRICS19198747
11. Scheibel M Hug K Gerhardt C Krueger D Arthroscopic reduction and fixation of large solitary and multifragmented anterior glenoid rim fractures J Shoulder Elb Surg 2016 25 781 790 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.012
Scheibel M, Hug K, Gerhardt C, Krueger D (2016) Arthroscopic reduction and fixation of large solitary and multifragmented anterior glenoid rim fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25:781–790. 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.012
12. Salomonsson B von Heine A Dahlborn M Bony Bankart is a positive predictive factor after primary shoulder dislocation Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010 18 1425 1431 10.1007/S00167-009-0998-3 19997719
Salomonsson B, von Heine A, Dahlborn M et al (2010) Bony Bankart is a positive predictive factor after primary shoulder dislocation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1425–1431. 10.1007/S00167-009-0998-319997719
13. Maquieira GJ Espinosa N Gerber C Eid K Non-operative treatment of large anterior glenoid rim fractures after traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 2007 89 1347 1351 10.1302/0301-620X.89B10.19273
Maquieira GJ, Espinosa N, Gerber C, Eid K (2007) Non-operative treatment of large anterior glenoid rim fractures after traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 89:1347–1351. 10.1302/0301-620X.89B10.19273
14. Chen AZ, Greaves KM, deMeireles AJ et al (2023) Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic bony Bankart Repair for Anterior instability of the shoulder: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 51. 10.1177/03635465221094832
15. Milano G Grasso A Russo A Analysis of risk factors for glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability Am J Sports Med 2011 39 1870 1876 10.1177/0363546511411699 21709024
Milano G, Grasso A, Russo A et al (2011) Analysis of risk factors for glenoid bone defect in anterior shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med 39:1870–1876. 10.1177/036354651141169921709024
16. Di Giacomo G Itoi E Burkhart SS Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and the hill-sachs lesion: from engaging/non-engaging lesion to on-track/off-track lesion Arthrosc - J Arthrosc Relat Surg 2014 30 90 98 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.10.004
Di Giacomo G, Itoi E, Burkhart SS (2014) Evolving concept of bipolar bone loss and the hill-sachs lesion: from engaging/non-engaging lesion to on-track/off-track lesion. Arthrosc - J Arthrosc Relat Surg 30:90–98. 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.10.004
17. Godin JA Altintas B Horan MP Midterm results of the Bony Bankart Bridge technique for the Treatment of Bony Bankart Lesions Am J Sports Med 2019 47 158 164 10.1177/0363546518808495 30485124
Godin JA, Altintas B, Horan MP et al (2019) Midterm results of the Bony Bankart Bridge technique for the Treatment of Bony Bankart Lesions. Am J Sports Med 47:158–164. 10.1177/036354651880849530485124
18. Spiegl UJ Smith SD Todd JN Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopic single- and Double-Row Repair Techniques for Acute Bony Bankart Lesions Am J Sports Med 2014 42 1939 1946 10.1177/0363546514532782 25023439
Spiegl UJ, Smith SD, Todd JN et al (2014) Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopic single- and Double-Row Repair Techniques for Acute Bony Bankart Lesions. Am J Sports Med 42:1939–1946. 10.1177/036354651453278225023439
19. Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Kanisawa I, Tsuchiya A (2006) Arthroscopic osseous Bankart repair for chronic recurrent traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88 Suppl 1159–169. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00319
20. Millett PJ, Braun S (2009) The Bony Bankart Bridge Procedure: a new arthroscopic technique for reduction and internal fixation of a Bony Bankart Lesion. 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.07.005
21. Scheibel M Magosch P Lichtenberg S Habermeyer P Open reconstruction of anterior glenoid rim fractures. Knee surgery Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2004 12 568 573 10.1007/S00167-004-0495-7/FIGURES/5
Scheibel M, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P (2004) Open reconstruction of anterior glenoid rim fractures. Knee surgery. Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 12:568–573. 10.1007/S00167-004-0495-7/FIGURES/5
22. Raiss P Baumann F Akbar M Open screw fixation of large anterior glenoid rim fractures: Mid- and long-term results in 29 patients Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2009 17 195 203 10.1007/S00167-008-0677-9/METRICS
Raiss P, Baumann F, Akbar M et al (2009) Open screw fixation of large anterior glenoid rim fractures: Mid- and long-term results in 29 patients. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 17:195–203. 10.1007/S00167-008-0677-9/METRICS
23. Bonnevialle N Clavert P Arboucalot M Contribution of arthroscopy in the treatment of anterior glenoid rim fractures: a comparison with open surgery J Shoulder Elb Surg 2019 28 42 47 10.1016/J.JSE.2018.07.008
Bonnevialle N, Clavert P, Arboucalot M et al (2019) Contribution of arthroscopy in the treatment of anterior glenoid rim fractures: a comparison with open surgery. J Shoulder Elb Surg 28:42–47. 10.1016/J.JSE.2018.07.008
24. Osti M Gohm A Benedetto KP Results of open reconstruction of anterior glenoid rim fractures following shoulder dislocation Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009 129 1245 1249 10.1007/s00402-009-0828-6 19221773
Osti M, Gohm A, Benedetto KP (2009) Results of open reconstruction of anterior glenoid rim fractures following shoulder dislocation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1245–1249. 10.1007/s00402-009-0828-619221773
25. Wieser K, Waltenspül M, Ernstbrunner L et al (2020) Nonoperative treatment of Anterior Glenoid Rim fractures after First-Time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a study with 9-Year follow-up. 10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00133. JBJS Open Access 5:
26. Waltenspül M Ernstbrunner L Ammann E Long-term results of non-operative treatment of Anterior Glenoid Rim fractures after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation J Shoulder Elb Surg 2021 30 e464 10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.117
Waltenspül M, Ernstbrunner L, Ammann E et al (2021) Long-term results of non-operative treatment of Anterior Glenoid Rim fractures after primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation. J Shoulder Elb Surg 30:e464. 10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.117
27. Sugaya H Moriishi J Dohi M Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability J Bone Jt Surg 2003 85 878 884 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00016
Sugaya H, Moriishi J, Dohi M et al (2003) Glenoid rim morphology in recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. J Bone Jt Surg 85:878–884. 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00016
28. Walch G Badet R Boulahia A Khoury A Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis J Arthroplasty 1999 14 756 760 10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90232-2 10512449
Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A (1999) Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 14:756–760. 10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90232-210512449
29. Ropars M Fournier A Campillo B Clinical assessment of external rotation for the diagnosis of anterior shoulder hyperlaxity Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010 96 84 87 10.1016/j.otsr.2010.09.002
Ropars M, Fournier A, Campillo B et al (2010) Clinical assessment of external rotation for the diagnosis of anterior shoulder hyperlaxity. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:84–87. 10.1016/j.otsr.2010.09.002
30. James M Kwong CA More KD Bony Apprehension Test for identifying bone loss in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a validation study Am J Sports Med 2022 50 1520 1528 10.1177/03635465221085673 35357960
James M, Kwong CA, More KD et al (2022) Bony Apprehension Test for identifying bone loss in patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a validation study. Am J Sports Med 50:1520–1528. 10.1177/0363546522108567335357960
31. Gagey OJ Gagey N The hyperabduction test J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 2001 83 69 74 10.1302/0301-620X.83B1.10628
Gagey OJ, Gagey N (2001) The hyperabduction test. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 83:69–74. 10.1302/0301-620X.83B1.10628
32. Nutton RW McBirnie JM Phillips C Treatment of chronic rotator-cuff impingement by arthroscopic subacromial decompression J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997 79 73 76 10.1302/0301-620X.79B1.7225 9020449
Nutton RW, McBirnie JM, Phillips C (1997) Treatment of chronic rotator-cuff impingement by arthroscopic subacromial decompression. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:73–76. 10.1302/0301-620X.79B1.72259020449
33. Lazzarini F, Distefano M, Shen T et al (2024) Anatomic reduction of Greater Tuberosity Fragment for Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty: a predictor of good clinical outcome. 10.22038/ABJS.2023.74441.3448. Arch Bone Jt Surg
34. Königshausen M Coulibaly M Nicolas V Konservative Therapie Der Anteroinferioren Glenoidrandfraktur (Bankart-Fraktur): Erste Ergebnisse Obere Extrem 2013 2 96 102 10.1007/S11678-012-0187-8
Königshausen M, Coulibaly M, Nicolas V et al (2013) Konservative Therapie Der Anteroinferioren Glenoidrandfraktur (Bankart-Fraktur): Erste Ergebnisse. Obere Extrem 2:96–102. 10.1007/S11678-012-0187-8
35. Fujii Y Yoneda M Wakitani S Hayashida K Histologic analysis of bony bankart lesions in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder J Shoulder Elb Surg 2006 15 218 223 10.1016/j.jse.2005.06.006
Fujii Y, Yoneda M, Wakitani S, Hayashida K (2006) Histologic analysis of bony bankart lesions in recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15:218–223. 10.1016/j.jse.2005.06.006
36. Kuberakani K Aizawa K Yamamoto N Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect J Shoulder Elb Surg 2020 29 502 507 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.027
Kuberakani K, Aizawa K, Yamamoto N et al (2020) Comparison of best-fit circle versus contralateral comparison methods to quantify glenoid bone defect. J Shoulder Elb Surg 29:502–507. 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.027
