Giles compared both of the described fixation techniques in a cadaveric biomechanical model with a simulated osseous defect size of 15% without creating a labral avulsion. The authors reported significant differences in fragment displacement at various loading conditions; however, they reported that these small, but statistically significant, differences were likely clinically insignificant. In conjunction with the reported nonsignificant differences in failure strength and load transfer between the 2 techniques, the authors concluded that the 2 techniques were biomechanically equivalent. However, several studies have shown that significantly increased anterior glenohumeral instability associated with glenoid rim lesions only occurs for defects exceeding 20% of the glenoid surface area. Thus, controversy exists regarding the need for surgical repair in glenoid rim defects of less than 20%. There exists no biomechanical data to date comparing arthroscopic bony repair techniques for osseous Bankart lesions with defect sizes exceeding 20% of the glenoid surface area.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the time zero reduction of distance across the fracture and bio- mechanical stability associated with the single-row technique described by Porcellini and the double-row technique described by Millett and Braun of bony Bankart lesions with a 25% defect. The double-row technique was hypothesized to provide improved fracture reduction and superior stability compared with the single-row technique.
Full Article: Biomechanical Comparison of Arthroscopic Single- and Double-Row Repair Techniques for Acute Bony Bankart Lesions