Postoperative Management Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review systematically the literature concerning postoperative management following arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability in adolescent and young adult (≤ 25 years) athletes. METHODS: The Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO (CINAHL), and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all studies reporting postoperative rehabilitation guidelines following arthroscopic Bankart repair in the adolescent and young adult population. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies instrument and Modified Coleman Methodology Score were used for quality assessment of the included studies. All aspects of rehabilitation were extracted and analyzed, including type/duration of immobilization, range of motion, strength, and return to sport (RTS) criteria. RESULTS: Screening yielded 17 eligible studies with a total of 675 patients and an average age of 18.3 years. There was considerable variation with regard to reported postoperative rehabilitation guidelines. Of the 17 studies, 15 reported the duration of immobilization; there was a mean of 4 weeks (range, 2-6 weeks). Range of motion and strength restrictions were reported in 15 (88.2%) and 13 (76.4%) studies, respectively. All of the 17 studies included an expected timeframe for RTS, but only 5 of the studies (29.4%) included either subjective or objective criteria to determine safe RTS. Differences in outcomes were unable to be assessed due to large study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation is reported in postoperative rehabilitation guidelines following arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic shoulder instability in the adolescent and young adult population. All studies used time-based criteria for determining RTS, but subjective and/or objective criteria were lacking in the majority of studies. The current literature lacks data to generate evidence-based rehabilitation protocols in this young athletic population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.