Results After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Contact Athletes Should Not Be Reported Globally Because of the High Variability in Recurrences Among the Different Contact or Collision Sports: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To describe and compare the recurrence rates in contact or collision (CC) sports after arthroscopic Bankartrepair (ABR) and to compare the recurrence rates in CC versus non-collision athletes after ABR. Methods: We followed aprespecified protocol registered with PROSPERO (registration No. CRD42022299853). In January 2022, a literature searchwas performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of ControlledTrials), as well as clinical trials records. Clinical studies (Level I-IV evidence) that evaluated recurrence after ABR in CCathletes with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years postoperatively were included. We assessed the quality of the studiesusing the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and we described the range of effectsusing synthesis without meta-analysis and described the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations,Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Results: We identified 35 studies, which included 2,591athletes. The studies had heterogeneous definitions of recurrence and classifications of sports. The recurrence rates afterABR varied significantly among studies between 3% and 51% (I2 ¼ 84.9%, 35 studies and 2,591 participants). The rangewas at the higher end for participants younger than 20 years (range, 11%-51%; I2 ¼ 81.7%) compared with olderparticipants (range, 3%-30%; I2 ¼ 54.7%). The recurrence rates also varied by recurrence definition (I2 ¼ 83.3%) andwithin and across categories of CC sports (I2 ¼ 83.8%). CC athletes had higher recurrence rates than did non-collisionathletes (7%-29% vs 0%-14%; I2 ¼ 29.2%; 12 studies with 612 participants). Overall, the risk of bias of all theincluded studies was determined to be moderate. The certainty of the evidence was low owing to study design (Level III-IVevidence), study limitations, and inconsistency. Conclusions: There was high variability in the recurrence rates reportedafter ABR according to the different types of CC sports, ranging from 3% to 51%. Moreover, variations in recurrenceamong CC sports were observed, with ice hockey players being in the upper range but field hockey players being in thelower range. Finally, CC athletes showed higher recurrence rates when compared with non-collision athletes. Level ofEvidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.