Key result
Augmenting arthroscopic Bankart repair with the Recenter metal implant did not significantly reduce recurrence rates compared to traditional repair (9.4% vs 16.7%, p>0.05).
Why the study?
Arthroscopic Bankart repair is associated with increased failure over time, and it was unknown whether adding a Recenter metal block implant reduces recurrence in glenohumeral anterior instability.
Does the addition of the Recenter implant to arthroscopic Bankart repair reduce the rate of recurrence in patients with glenohumeral anterior instability?
Case-Control (n=80)
Yes
Does the addition of the Recenter implant to arthroscopic Bankart repair reduce the rate of recurrence in patients with glenohumeral anterior instability?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.4% vs 16.7%
p-value: p=>0.05
The addition of a metal block implant to arthroscopic Bankart repair did not significantly improve recurrence rates or functional outcomes compared to traditional repair.
No significant reduction in recurrence with Recenter augmentation; leaves open efficacy in randomized trials.
Introduction: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) is associated with an increased failure rate over time. The Recenter implant, a metal block, is designed to reinforce capsulolabral repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of the Recenter implant to ABR reduces the rate of recurrence in patients with glenohumeral anterior instability. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, multicentric case–control study focusing on patients surgically treated for anterior shoulder instability from February 2012 to November 2019. This study compared patients undergoing ABR augmented with the “Recenter” implant (augmented ABR group) against those receiving traditional ABR. Primary outcomes measured included recurrence rates. Secondary outcome measures included functional scores (Walch–Duplay and the subjective shoulder test [SST], the auto Rowe score, satisfaction, pain, and the presence or absence of subjective subluxation and apprehension), return to sports, the range of motion, as well as other complications. Results: Thirty-two patients with augmented ABR were compared to forty-eight patients in the traditional ABR group, with mean follow-up periods of 5.2 ± 1.3 years and 6.1 ± 1.5 years, respectively. Three patients (9.4%) experienced recurrence in the “Recenter” group, versus eight (16.7%) in the other group (p > 0.05). The Walch–Duplay score was 70.2 ± 8.2 in the “Recenter” group and 64.2 ± 8 in the control group (p > 0.05). The SST score out of 100 was, respectively, 84.6 ± 6 and 81.5 ± 5.5 (p = 0.05). There were no early complications in the implant group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups for the other outcomes. Conclusions: ABR safely restores shoulder stability in selected patients with subcritical glenoid bone deficiency. However, the addition of the Recenter metal implant did not improve outcomes compared to traditional Bankart repair and introduced presumed significant surgical time, technical challenges, and additional costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vedrenne et al. (2025) conducted a case-control in anterior shoulder instability (n=80). Arthroscopic Bankart repair augmented with the Recenter implant vs. Traditional arthroscopic Bankart repair was evaluated on recurrence rates (p=>0.05). Augmenting arthroscopic Bankart repair with the Recenter metal implant did not significantly reduce recurrence rates compared to traditional repair (9.4% vs 16.7%, p>0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: