Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 25, 2025
Measuring 3D In-vivo Shoulder Kinematics using Biplanar Videoradiography
Published on: March 12, 2021
Risk Factors for Revision Posterior Shoulder Stabilization in Throwing Athletes
Ravi Vaswani1, Justin Arner2, Halle Freiman3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Background:
Revision posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair has inferior outcomes compared with primary surgery. Risk factors for revision in throwing athletes are unknown.
Purpose/Hypothesis:
The purpose of this study was to characterize the revision rate and risk factors for revision surgery in throwing athletes. It was hypothesized that female athletes and those with smaller glenoid bone width would be at higher risk for revision surgery.
Study Design:
Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
A total of 105 throwing athletes who underwent arthroscopic posterior capsulolabral repair of their throwing shoulder were reviewed at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, and patients who required a revision were compared with those who did not. Collected data compared between the revision and no-revision groups included age, sex, contact sport participation, and return to sport (RTS). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) score, stability, pain, strength, range of motion (ROM), and patient satisfaction. Radiographic parameters including glenoid bone version, cartilage version, labral version, bone width, labral width, glenoid labral version and width weight were also compared between both groups.
Results:
Nine throwers required revision (8.6%) at an average of 2.8 years postoperatively. There were more female athletes in the revision than no-revision group (55.5% vs 23.4%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in age, proportion of contact athletes, rotator cuff tears, glenoid bone version, cartilage version, labral version, labral version weight, bone width, labral width, or labral width weight. Both groups had similar preoperative, postoperative, and change in ASES, KJOC, pain, strength, stability, and ROM scores. The proportion of patients with full strength and with full ROM, as well as patients who were satisfied with outcomes was similar between groups. Fewer patients in the revision group returned to sports compared with those in the no-revision group (14.3% vs 83.6%; P < .001), although return to sports at same level was not significantly different between groups (14.3% vs 37.2%; P = .41).
Conclusion:
The revision rate of arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization in throwers was 8.6%. Female athletes were at higher risk for revision, and return to sports was lower in patients who underwent revision surgery.
