The Role of Rotator Interval Closure in Bankart Lesion Repair

The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between the two treatment groups for any outcome. The investigators suspect that patients who undergo a Bankart lesion repair with rotator interval closure will have lower quality of life and less external rotation compared to patients who undergo a Bankart lesion repair alone. No difference will be observed for recurrence rate between the two treatment groups

Research assessing the role and effectiveness of rotator interval closure is important to attempt to determine the most beneficial and efficient treatment for Bankart lesions and anterior shoulder instability. To date there is only weak evidence supporting the superiority of Bankart lesion repair in addition to rotator interval closure compared to Bankart lesion repair alone. Does Bankart lesion repair with rotator interval closure result in differences in quality of life, range of motion and recurrence at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years in similar patients with Bankart lesions who are treated with Bankart lesion repair alone?

Universal goniometer Internal & external ROM at neutral (0°) and 90° of abduction Both active and passive ROM at both positions

Inclusion Criteria: Patients between the ages of 15 to 50 years At least one episode of demonstrated dislocation Bankart lesion of the anterior glenoid labrum Absence of other capsular and tendon injuries Absence of glenoid fractures or divots Exclusion Criteria: Posterior instability or the need for posterior surgical reconstruction Significant bone lesions greater than 3mm of the humeral head anterior-to- posterior (Hill-Sachs lesions) Presence of other pathologic conditions of the shoulder (excluding SLAP lesions)