Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair (Posterior Shoulder Instability)

Sports MedicineAdvancedCore Procedure

Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair (Posterior Shoulder Instability)

Arthroscopic reverse Bankart repair and posterior capsular plication for posterior shoulder instability - indications, portal placement, anchor technique, bone loss assessment, complications and rehabilitation

High-yield overview

Reverse Bankart repair with posterior capsular plication | advanced

Surgical Imaging

Critical Danger Structures and Exam Traps
Jerk Test False Negative

The trap: Performing the jerk test with the patient supine or without adequate relaxation misses subtle posterior subluxation that is only apparent in the seated or standing position with the arm in adduction.

The fix: Perform the jerk test seated with the scapula stabilised. Apply axial load to the humerus in 90 degrees abduction then internally rotate while bringing the arm into adduction. A clunk or reproduction of the patient's apprehension confirms posterior labral pathology.

Posterior Glenoid Bone Loss Underestimation

Location: Standard axillary lateral radiograph underestimates posterior glenoid bone loss. The en-face 3D CT view with the circle method is required.

Risk: Arthroscopic soft-tissue repair alone in the presence of greater than 20 percent bone loss has recurrence rates exceeding 40 percent. Always obtain 3D CT preoperatively and measure bone loss before committing to an all-arthroscopic plan.

Axillary Nerve Proximity - Inferior Portal

Location: The axillary nerve lies 1.5-2.5 cm inferior to the inferior glenoid rim and is at risk with inferior or posteroinferior portal placement.

Risk: A portal placed too inferior or an aggressive inferior capsular release can injure the axillary nerve. Stay at least 1.5 cm superior to the inferior glenoid rim when placing the 7 o'clock portal and use blunt dissection only.

Reverse Hill-Sachs Engagement Missed

Deformity: An anterior humeral head defect (reverse Hill-Sachs) greater than 20 percent of the articular surface can engage the posterior glenoid rim in internal rotation and cause recurrent instability after labral repair alone.

Implication: Preoperative CT or MRI must assess the size and location of the reverse Hill-Sachs lesion. Engaging lesions require additional procedures (remplissage, bone grafting, or humeral head allograft) at the time of labral repair.

Capsular Plication Over-Tightening

Why different: Excessive posterior capsular plication reduces external rotation and can cause stiffness or posterior humeral head subluxation in the opposite direction.

Implications: Limit plication to 1 cm of capsular shift per interval. Intraoperative assessment of external rotation after each plication stitch prevents over-constraint. Aim for at least 30-40 degrees of external rotation in adduction at the end of the procedure.

Missed Multidirectional Instability

Kanavel's four signs of flexor sheath infection: (1) Semi-flexed posture, (2) fusiform swelling, (3) tenderness along entire flexor sheath, (4) pain on passive extension.

Trigger finger: Intermittent snapping/locking at MCP level, no fever, no systemic features, tenderness localised to A1 pulley. Never inject a septic flexor sheath - this is a surgical emergency.

Mnemonic

P.O.S.T.E.R.I.O.RPOSTERIOR - Key Clinical Features of Posterior Instability

Mnemonic

A.N.C.H.O.RANCHOR - Portal and Anchor Placement Principles

Surgical Indications

Absolute Indications

  • Recurrent posterior subluxation or dislocation with documented posterior labral tear on MRI or MRA
  • Failed non-operative management (minimum 3-6 months of structured physiotherapy focusing on scapular stabilisation and rotator cuff strengthening)
  • Positive jerk test or Kim test reproducing the patient's symptoms with corresponding labral pathology on imaging

Relative Indications

  • Contact or overhead athlete with functional instability limiting sport participation
  • Posterior labral tear with greater than 50 percent detachment or associated posterior capsular redundancy
  • Reverse Hill-Sachs lesion less than 20 percent articular surface with no engagement

Contraindications

Absolute:

  • Posterior glenoid bone loss greater than 25 percent or glenoid retroversion greater than 20 degrees (requires bone block augmentation)
  • Engaging reverse Hill-Sachs lesion greater than 25 percent of humeral head articular surface
  • Active infection or uncontrolled medical comorbidity precluding surgery

Relative:

  • Multidirectional instability with predominant posterior component (consider global capsular shift or arthroscopic pancapsular plication)
  • Poor tissue quality (Ehlers-Danlos, prior failed thermal capsulorrhaphy)
  • Patient unable or unwilling to comply with postoperative rehabilitation protocol

Evidence for Non-Operative Treatment

Physiotherapy and Activity Modification

  • Structured physiotherapy focusing on scapular stabilisation, rotator cuff strengthening and proprioceptive training achieves symptom resolution in approximately 50-70 percent of patients with first-time or low-demand posterior instability
  • Contact athletes and those with significant labral detachment have lower success rates with non-operative care and earlier surgical referral is appropriate
  • A minimum of 3-6 months of compliant physiotherapy is required before declaring failure

Evidence for Surgery

Arthroscopic vs Open Repair

Arthroscopic reverse Bankart repair with capsular plication:

  • Allows direct visualisation and anatomic restoration of the labral bumper
  • Permits simultaneous treatment of associated pathology (SLAP tears, rotator cuff lesions, chondral injury)
  • Lower morbidity, faster return to sport and better cosmesis than open approaches
  • Modern series report 85-95 percent success rates with proper patient selection and technique

Open posterior approach:

  • Reserved for cases requiring bone block augmentation or when arthroscopic access is limited by body habitus or prior surgery
  • Higher morbidity, longer recovery and greater risk of stiffness

Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair - Key Outcome Metrics


Key Evidence

Evidence

Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction for posterior instability of the shoulder: a prospective study of 100 shoulders

Level II
Bradley JP, Baker CL 3rd, Kline AJ, et alAm J Sports Med
Clinical implication: Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction provides reliable outcomes for posterior shoulder instability with low recurrence in selected patients.
Source: Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1061-71
Evidence

Recurrent posterior shoulder instability

Level III
Robinson CM, Aderinto JJ Bone Joint Surg Am
Clinical implication: Accurate diagnosis with provocative tests and imaging is essential; bone loss quantification changes surgical decision-making.
Source: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Apr;87(4):883-92
Evidence

Posterior Instability of the Shoulder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Level III
DeLong JM, Jiang K, Bradley JPAm J Sports Med
Clinical implication: Arthroscopic repair is effective overall but contact athletes require counselling on recurrence risk and possible bone augmentation.
Source: Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1805-17
Evidence

Arthroscopic treatment of posterior shoulder instability in 22 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up

Level II
Bradley JP, Baker CL 3rd, Kline AJ, et alAm J Sports Med
Clinical implication: Arthroscopic posterior labral repair with capsular plication provides durable results in appropriately selected patients.
Source: Am J Sports Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1061-71

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

A 22-year-old college football offensive lineman presents with recurrent posterior shoulder subluxation during blocking drills. He has had three episodes over the past season despite a 4-month course of physiotherapy. MRI shows a posterior labral tear with 15 percent posterior glenoid bone loss. How do you manage him?

Practical approach
This patient has failed non-operative management and has a documented posterior labral tear with borderline bone loss. I would proceed with arthroscopic posterior labral repair and capsular plication, with careful intraoperative assessment of glenoid bone loss and reverse Hill-Sachs lesion size. **Pre-operative workup**: I would obtain a 3D CT scan with en-face glenoid view to precisely quantify posterior glenoid bone loss using the circle method. I would also assess for a reverse Hill-Sachs lesion and its engagement potential on CT or MRI. I would counsel the patient that if bone loss is confirmed greater than 20 percent intraoperatively, a posterior bone block may be required. **Operative plan**: Lateral decubitus position with 10-15 pounds of traction. Standard posterior and anterior superior portals plus accessory 7 o'clock portal. Diagnostic arthroscopy confirming posterior labral detachment from 6 to 10 o'clock. Labral preparation to bleeding bone bed. Placement of three bioabsorbable suture anchors at the 7, 8 and 9 o'clock positions. Anatomic repair of the labrum recreating the posterior bumper. Posterior capsular plication of 1 cm total shift using mattress sutures. Intraoperative assessment of stability and external rotation (minimum 30-40 degrees in adduction). **Post-operative**: Sling with abduction pillow for 6 weeks, progressive ROM and strengthening per protocol. Return to non-contact training at 4 months, contact at 6-7 months if strength and stability criteria met. I would discuss with the patient the higher recurrence risk in contact athletes (12-20 percent) and the possible need for bone augmentation if bone loss is underestimated.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

You are performing an arthroscopic posterior labral repair on a 28-year-old weightlifter. After placing the 7 o'clock anchor you notice the drill hole is too medial on the glenoid face. What do you do?

Practical approach
A medially placed anchor hole will result in a non-anatomic repair with loss of the labral bumper effect and high risk of recurrent instability. I would abandon that anchor hole and place a new anchor at the correct position on the glenoid rim. **Immediate action**: Do not insert the anchor into the medial hole. Remove the drill guide and reposition the guide more laterally so the anchor will sit 2-3 mm onto the articular face of the glenoid rim at a 45-degree angle. Create a new drill hole at the correct position. **Technical correction**: The original medial hole can be left empty or filled with a bioabsorbable plug if available. The new anchor is placed at the anatomic position. I would then proceed with labral repair using the correctly positioned anchor. **Root cause analysis**: The medial placement occurred because the drill guide was angled too steeply or the portal trajectory was too medial. I would adjust the 7 o'clock portal or use a different angle of approach for subsequent anchors. If the bone stock is poor medially, I would consider a larger anchor or an all-suture anchor that allows more flexibility in placement. **Prevention for future cases**: I always confirm anchor trajectory with a probe or needle before committing to the drill hole. I visualise the guide sitting perpendicular to the glenoid rim at the desired position before drilling.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

A 35-year-old man with a history of seizure disorder presents with recurrent posterior shoulder instability after a grand mal seizure 6 months ago. CT shows 25 percent posterior glenoid bone loss and a 22 percent reverse Hill-Sachs lesion that engages in internal rotation. What is your surgical plan?

Practical approach
This patient has significant bipolar bone loss with an engaging reverse Hill-Sachs lesion. Soft-tissue repair alone will fail. I would plan a combined procedure addressing both the glenoid bone loss and the humeral head defect. **Pre-operative planning**: 3D CT with en-face glenoid view confirms 25 percent posterior glenoid bone loss (greater than 20 percent threshold). The reverse Hill-Sachs lesion involves 22 percent of the articular surface and engages the posterior glenoid rim in internal rotation. I would discuss with the patient the need for bone augmentation on both sides of the joint. **Surgical plan**: Open posterior approach (or arthroscopically assisted) for posterior bone block using iliac crest autograft or allograft fixed with two cannulated screws. The bone block restores glenoid width and version. Simultaneously or staged, address the reverse Hill-Sachs with either remplissage (infraspinatus tenodesis into the defect) or humeral head bone grafting/allograft reconstruction depending on lesion chronicity and bone quality. **Rationale**: Posterior bone block augmentation has 90-95 percent success in restoring stability when soft-tissue repair alone would fail. Remplissage or bone grafting of the engaging reverse Hill-Sachs prevents recurrent engagement and subluxation. Seizure disorder requires neurology optimisation pre-operatively and discussion of recurrence risk if seizures are not controlled. **Post-operative**: Protected rehabilitation with emphasis on seizure prophylaxis. Return to activity at 6-9 months with functional bracing if contact sport is planned.
Exam day cheat sheet
Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair - Exam Day Summary

References

Evidence

Arthroscopic treatment of posterior shoulder instability: results in 22 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up

Level II
Bradley JP, Baker CL 3rd, Kline AJ, et alAm J Sports Med
Evidence

Posterior shoulder instability: diagnosis and management

Level III
Robinson CM, Aderinto JJ Bone Joint Surg Br
Evidence

Arthroscopic posterior labral repair for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review

Level IV
DeLong JM, Jiang K, Bradley JPArthroscopy
Evidence

Glenoid bone loss in posterior shoulder instability: quantification and clinical implications

Level III
Bois AJ, Fening SD, Polster J, et alJ Shoulder Elbow Surg
Evidence

Long-term outcomes of arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilisation

Level II
Provencher MT, Bell SJ, Menzel KA, et alAm J Sports Med
Editorially reviewed — transparent references and correction processPublished by OrthoVellum Medical Education TeamEditorial boardMethodologyReview policy
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.