Similar outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-Track Hill Sachs lesion versus off-track Hill Sachs lesion managed with open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift

IntroductionOpen Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift has not yet been tested under the concept of glenoid track as a predictor of failure. The aim of this study was to compare the subjective and objective outcomes in collision athletes with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill Sachs lesions versus those with off-track Hill Sachs lesions, all treated with open Bankart repair.MethodsTwo study groups were created: 50 patients had on-track Hill Sachs lesions, while 38 had off-track lesions. The subcritical glenoid bone loss was <= 10%. A minimum follow-up period of 3 years was established. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation of each group and between them was performed. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale were used to assess subjective outcomes. Recurrence rate, range of motion and return to sport were evaluated as objective outcomes.ResultsSignificant differences were reported in the WOSI and ASES scores between preoperative and postoperative values in each group. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.36 and 0.71). Three dislocations (6%) in the on-track group and 3 (7.8%) in the off-track group were recorded, showing no differences between the two groups (p-value = 0.83). There were no differences in ROM between pre- and post-operatively in each group or when comparing the two groups.ConclusionsWe found no differences between the outcomes of the two groups. According to the surgeon's preference, we recommend performing open Bankart repair plus inferior capsular shift as a treatment alternative in collision athletes with SGBL <= 10% independently of the type of Hill Sachs lesion.