• Journal of Korean Orthopaedic Sports Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.154-158
• /
• 2002

Purpose: To compare the results of open and arthroscopic method in recurrent anterior should erinstability. Materials and Methods: The 68 patients who have been taken the open or arthroscopic Bankartrepair for the period of Jan. 1995 to April. 2000. One group (23 patients) had elected an arthroscopic Bankart repair, the other group (45 patients) had chosen open stabilization. Patients were followed up12 to 63 months (ave. 34 months) after surgery. Results: We found 2 cases of subluxation out of open repair group, and then treated by conservative method. There were another 2 cases of dislocation and 2 cases of subluxation out of arthroscopicrepair group, and we have taken out 1 case of reoperation by open method. Using the functional scales by Rowe, the patients who have taken the open method posted at the average point of 87, while the arthroscopic method posted 85 points. Patients satisfaction points were 84.6 and 72.5 respectively. There were no criteria of statistically significant except stability and motion score. Conclusion: Open Bankart repair would be better in stability, and arthroscopic method in ROM gain. Proper patient selection based on physical examination and arthroscopic inspection to optimize the indications contributed to successful treatment.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.50-54
• /
• 2011

A growing number of people are enjoying sports activity with a rise in national income. In this current, many patients complain of traumatic shoulder dislocation and chronic instability with bony Bankart lesion. Computed tomography arthrography is good diagnostic modality for bony Bankart lesion. It is important to consider the patients' factors such as occupation, sports activity, size of preoperative glenoid bone loss before decision of treatment. As development of arthroscopic treatment, there is no significant difference in the result of bony Bankart repair between arthroscopic surgery and open surgery. However, open surgery should be considered for patients with preoperative glenoid bone loss more than 25% or in need of collision sports activity.

• The Academic Congress of Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
• /
• 2009.03a
• /
• pp.186-186
• /
• 2009

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.72-78
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Too develop a flexible drill device that can be inserted into the shoulder joint so that arthroscopic transosseous suture repair for Bankart lesion is possible. Materials and Methods: We created a device composed of a flexible drill unit and a guide pipe unit. The flexible drill unit was made of flexible multifilament wires (1.2 mm in diameter) that was twisted into one cord so that it can flex in any direction and a drill bit (1.2 mm in diameter) that is attached onto one end of the flexible wire. The guide pipe unit was a 150 mm long metal pipe (2.0 mm in inner diameter and 3.0 mm in outer diameter), with one end bent to 30 degrees. The flexible drill set was inserted into the shoulder joint through the posterior portal of the joint. The guide pipe component was placed onto the medial wall of the glenoid so that the pipe was placed 5 mm posterior to the margin of the anterior glenoid rim. The flexible drill was driven through the glenoid by the power drill so that holes were made in the glenoid. A non- absorbable suture was passed through the hole. Tying of a sliding knot tying was accomplished over the capsule and labrum after making a stitch through the capsule and labrum with a suture hook loaded with suture passer. The same procedures were done at the 2 and 4 O'Clock positions of the glenoid. Results: Five cases with Bankart lesion received arthroscopic transosseous repair with our flexible drill device. There were no intraoperative problems. Neither redislocation nor subluxation was reported at final follow-up. Conclusion: Arthroscopic transosseous suture repair without suture anchors and easy tying of a sliding knot are possible with a flexible drill set.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.103-108
• /
• 2004

Purpose: This study reported the outcomes following the use of bioabsorbable knotless anchor in patients with anterior instability of shoulder. Methods: We studied fifteen cases with traumatic anterior shoulder instability underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with bioabsorbable knotless suture anchor between January 2003 and June 2003. Among fifteen patients, fourteen were male and one was female, with a mean patient age of 24 years (range 16-42). The mean follow-up was 14 months (range 12-18 months). We compared with operation time of twenty cases of arthroscopic Bankart repair by the suture anchor technique between January 2002 and October 2002. Results: Neither recurrent dislocation nor subluxation was happened in postoperative follow-up. Mean score for functional evaluation by Rowe et al. was 89.4 and that for patient subjective satisfaction was 87,5. At last follow-up period, average shoulder range of motion for flexion and external rotation was 171$^{\circ}$ and 54$^{\circ}$ respectively. All patients were satisfied except three who had an apprehension at the follow up. During Bankart repair, it took an average of 25.5 minutes for one knot with the use of suture anchor technique whereas an average of 16.5 minutes for one knot with the use of bioabsorbable knotless anchor. Significantly, we saved operation time with the use of bioabsorbable knotless anchor (P<0.05).Conclusion: Repairing the Bankart lesion with the use of knotless anchor technique has the advantage of obtaining good capsular tensioning and saving operation time. And it is considered to be very successful in treating shoulder instability without recurrent dislocation or subluxation.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.37-41
• /
• 2018

Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate results of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repairs and debridement of type II SLAP lesions combined with Bankart lesions. Methods: Between 2010 and 2014, total 58 patients with anterior shoulder instability due to a Bankart lesion combined with a type II SLAP lesion were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: group C consisted of 30 patients, each with a communicated Bankart and type II SLAP lesion and group NC consisted of 28 patients, each with a non-communicated Bankart and type II SLAP lesion. Bankart repairs were performed for all patients. SLAP lesions were repaired in group C and debrided in group NC. Clinical results were analysed to compare groups C and NC by using the visual analogue scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant scores, Rowe score for instability and range of motion assessments. Results: The clinical scores were improved in both groups at final follow-up. Also, there were no differences between two groups. No significant difference was found in terms of the range of motion measured at the last follow-up. The number of suture anchors used was significantly higher in group C than in group NC (5.6 vs. 3.8; p=0.021). Conclusions: In this study, it is considered that Bankart repair and SLAP debridement could be a treatment option in patients with a non-communicated type II SLAP lesion combined with a Bankart lesion (study design: IV, therapeutic study, case series).

• 대한정형외과스포츠의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.1-2
• /
• 2001

• The Academic Congress of Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society
• /
• 2008.03a
• /
• pp.4-4
• /
• 2008

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.115-118
• /
• 2009

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.98-101
• /
• 2009

Purpose: These case reports have been prepared to highlight the uncommon occurrence of anterior shoulder dislocation after an epileptic seizure, the recognition of which is important as this type of injury is associated with bony lesions and a high incidence of recurrence. Materials and Methods: We report two cases of recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder due to grand mal epilepsy. These cases were treated as usual anterior dislocations of the shoulder, and were regularly followed to detect any recurrence of shoulder instability. Results: Outcome of the surgery in the two cases was different because of the differences in seizure control. In the patient in whom seizures were well-controlled, there was no recurrence of instability, while the patient with poorly controlled seizures developed a recurrence of the dislocation following shoulder repair. Conclusion: The authors emphasize the need to control seizures in order to prevent injury recurrence in this subset of patients.