Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
200 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-04-25
2027-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Arthroscopic Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability
NCT02510625
Shoulder Instability Trial Comparing Arthroscopic Stabilization Benefits Compared With Latarjet Procedure Evaluation
NCT03585491
Shoulder Instability Trial Comparing Arthroscopic Stabilization Benefits Compared With Latarjet Procedure Evaluation - STABLE Definitive Trial
NCT05705479
Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With and Without Remplissage in Anterior Shoulder Instability
NCT01324531
Effectiveness of Surgery for Atraumatic Shoulder Instability
NCT01751490
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Recurrence rates are influenced by multiple factors including age and gender of the patient, contact sport participation, ligamentous laxity, and the bone loss both on the glenoid and humerus. Of these factors, bone loss is the only modifiable factor. Glenoid defects, present in 22% of patients with acute dislocations, are found in 73% of recurrent dislocations. The management of glenoid bone deficiency in shoulder instability has been a challenge to surgeons for many years. Anteroinferior glenoid bone loss is a significant contributor to recurrent instability through alteration of both the glenohumeral joint contact area and congruency of the articular surfaces. Previous researchers outlined the additive effect of humeral and glenoid bone loss in contributing to shoulder instability and stressed the importance of bony procedures in creating a stable shoulder, particularly for the young active patient. For patients with large anterior glenoid defects (\>25%) or other risk factors for recurrence, bone grafting procedures, including autogenous coracoid transfer to the anterior glenoid (i.e. Latarjet procedure) as well as iliac crest autograft and tibial allografts (i.e. arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR)) have been described. These procedures have all been shown to be equally effective and reliable techniques for treating shoulder instability.
The most common pathology in recurrent shoulder instability is anteroinferior capsulolabral avulsion. In 1938, Bankart described the detachment of the anterior inferior labrum from the glenoid rim as a cause of anterior instability and presented his case report of 27 patients treated surgically. In recent years, technical advancements in arthroscopic shoulder surgery have radically altered the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopic techniques have been developed in an attempt to reduce common challenges of open repair including wide dissection, loss of external rotation and post-operative pain. Arthroscopic labral repair, now considered routine and reliable, is the treatment of choice for many cases of recurrent anterior shoulder instability in North America.
Although the results of arthroscopic anterior labral repair using current techniques have been shown to parallel results of open anterior stabilizations in most patients, it is recognized that arthroscopic labral repair is less effective in patients with risk factors for failure such as young age, hyperlaxity, competitive contact sport participation, and in particular glenoid or humeral bone loss. A recently published long-term study on patient outcomes following isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair found a high rate of recurrence and development of arthritis at a 9-12- year follow-up. The authors state that an isolated Bankart repair does not solve the issue of glenoid bone loss.
While bony procedures have traditionally been reserved for cases with bone loss of the glenoid or humerus (so-called Hill-Sachs lesions), there are some regions in which surgeons prefer this type of procedure regardless of the degree of bone loss. This is in part due to recent findings revealing that bone loss may be underestimated by current methods of preoperative measurement. Currently, there are three common methods used to assess bone loss. Preoperative CT and MRI are employed to quantify bone defects, and arthroscopic evaluation may also be used.
There is much controversy over the most accurate method of quantifying bone loss. CT evaluation of glenoid bone loss pre-operatively has been shown to underestimate bone loss.. The absence of a validated non-invasive pre-operative imaging modality has led many surgeons to utilize bony procedures more aggressively, despite limited findings of bone loss on pre-operative imaging. One survey revealed that, irrespective of the types of patients and lesions, 72% of French shoulder surgeons prefer bone block procedures for treating traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability. This is in stark contrast to the findings of a large international survey, in which 90% of shoulder surgeons in other countries preferred arthroscopic Bankart repair. Rates of recurrence after these two techniques vary widely in the literature, ranging from 0% to 30% for arthroscopic Bankart repair, with a mean of 9%, and from 2% to 14% for the open Latarjet bone block procedure, with a mean of 7%.
In recent years, trends toward minimally invasive shoulder surgery along with improvements in technology and technique have led surgeons to expand the application of arthroscopic treatment. Techniques have been developed to treat severe instability with or without associated bone loss using arthroscopic bone allograft and autograft augmentation. These approaches seek to provide a nearly anatomic reconstruction of the glenohumeral joint by treating the soft tissue and the bony lesions. Advantages of an arthroscopic approach include smaller incisions, less disruption of the subscapularis, and the ability to evaluate the joint for other intra-articular lesions. The view afforded by the camera may allow for more accurate placement of the graft in the joint.
Rates of instability recurrence after Bankart and bone block procedures vary widely in the literature, ranging from 0% to 30% for arthroscopic Bankart repair and from 2% to 14% for the bone block procedures . A recent systematic review cites the recurrence rates for these two procedures to be 19.5% and 8.7%, respectively. Patients with recurrent dislocations and 25% bone loss make up the majority of instability patients, as opposed to first-time dislocators and patients with \>25% bone loss. There is no consensus on the best treatment type for patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability with subcritical (\<25%) bone loss. However, most of the evidence to support bone grafting over soft tissue repair in this patient population has been retrospective, and there has been no randomized controlled trial comparing Bankart with a bone block technique, data regarding newer arthroscopic bony glenoid augmentation is even more limited.
While a multi-site, double-blinded-randomized controlled trial would provide the best evidence for the preferred technique, the feasibility of such a project is unknown. The investigators therefore propose a pilot multi-site, double-blinded randomized controlled trial to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with those of arthroscopic Bankart repair plus bony glenoid augmentation (i.e. AAGR). The goal of this pilot is to assess the feasibility of recruiting patients across multiple sites while adhering to study protocols before conducting a definitive RCT which requires more resources (financial and otherwise). Additionally, most of the data on the AAGR technique is from a single surgeon and the investigators need to ensure that the results and outcomes are generalizable across multiple surgeons and multiple sites.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
QUADRUPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Bankart Repair
Arthroscopic Bankart repair procedures will be performed according to each individual surgeon's usual technique. Procedures will be performed with the patient in the lateral or beach-chair position. Repairs for associated or conjoined superior labral anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears will be documented and performed at the surgeon's discretion. Labral detachments will be repaired with the use of suture-anchor fixation and arthroscopic tying techniques. Either two or three suture anchors will be used. Capsular redundancy will be addressed with arthroscopic suture plication at the surgeon's discretion. Surgeons will mobilize the capsulolabral tissue as deemed necessary. Surgical time and video of the operation will be recorded, and photographs will be taken documenting any bone loss.
Bankart Repair
Patients Randomized to Bankart Repair Group
Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction
The surgical technique was the lateral decubitus all-arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction procedure for treatment of anterior shoulder instability as described by Wong et al. (2015). The procedure is done in a semi-lateral decubitus position that assists with optimal graft placement on the native glenoid. The investigators utilize the cannulated Bristow-Latarjet Instability Shoulder System (Depuy-Mitek, MA, USA). The surgical technique is identical to that of arthroscopic Bankart repair with one additional step. Prior to insertion of anchors, one additional medal portal is created for insertion of the bone graft. The distal tibia allograft is prepared; the cannulated guide is attached and advanced through the rotator interval and secured with two cannulated screws. Finally, the Bankart repair is performed above the graft. Surgical time and video of the operation will be recorded, and photographs will be taken documenting any bone loss.
Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction
Patients Randomized to Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Bankart Repair
Patients Randomized to Bankart Repair Group
Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction
Patients Randomized to Anatomic Glenoid Reconstruction Group
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Presence of glenoid and/or humerus bone loss on imaging (x Ray, CT or MRI)
Exclusion Criteria
* Prior surgery of affected shoulder
* Pregnancy
* Multidirectional instability
* Posterior instability
* Paralysis of the shoulder
* Cancer
* Severe systemic illness
* Presence of massive rotator cuff tear
* Patients that present with \< 10% or \> 25% bone loss under preoperative imaging.
* Generalized laxity (\>5/9 Beighton Score)
16 Years
40 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
OTHER_GOV
Nova Scotia Health Authority
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ivan Wong, MD
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Ivan H Wong, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Nova Scotia Health Authority
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Nova Scotia Health Authority
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
50028
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.