Arthroscopic versus open bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability

Techniques for the arthroscopic treatment of patients with recurrent should er instability have flourished despite several early reports indicating gre ater failure rates compared with traditional open stabilization techniques. Proponents of arthroscopic stabilization cite its advantages as including more accurate identification of intra-articular pathology, less morbidity, improved cosmesis, faster recovery, and, possibly, greater returns in posto perative motion. Disadvantages include complications inherent to the techni que applied, requisite technical skill, a potential lack of versatility to treat a spectrum of pathology, and generally higher failure rates. As the k nowledge of the basic science behind the pathophysiology of shoulder instab ility improves and as more clinical reports emerge, the exact indications f or arthroscopic stabilization are gradually being refined. Techniques for t he arthroscopic stabilization treatment of patients with recurrent shoulder instability have flourished despite several early reports indicating great er failure rates compared with traditional open stabilization techniques. P roponents cite advantages including more accurate identification of intra-a rticular pathology, less morbidity, improved cosmesis, faster recovery, and , possibly, greater return of postoperative motion. Disadvantages include c omplications inherent to the applied techniques, requisite technical skill, a potential lack of versatility to treat a spectrum of pathology, and gene rally higher failure rates. As knowledge of the basic science of the pathop hysiology of shoulder instability improves, and as more clinical reports em erge, the exact indications for arthroscopic stabilization gradually are be ing refined.