Shoulder labral / Bankart repair recovery data

Operation studied

arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral (Bankart) repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability

Measures

VAS pain (0-10, higher = worse) · patient satisfaction (1-10, higher = better)

Reported at

24 h, 96 h, 1 wk

Follow-up

1 week

What it reports

• This trial randomized 80 patients recovering from arthroscopic Bankart (shoulder labral) repair into two groups: 40 got ibuprofen 600 mg plus a small supply of oxycodone/acetaminophen for breakthrough pain, and 40 got oxycodone/acetaminophen alone.
• 24 hours after surgery, pain averaged 5.8 out of 10 (SD 2.3) in the ibuprofen-plus-opioid group and 5.4 out of 10 (SD 2.8) in the opioid-only group — the paper found this difference not statistically meaningful (p=.47).
• By 96 hours (about day 4), pain had eased to 4.0 out of 10 (SD 2.3) in the ibuprofen group and 3.8 out of 10 (SD 2.3) in the opioid-only group (p=.72).
• At 1 week, pain was 2.7 out of 10 in both groups (SD 1.7 ibuprofen group, SD 1.9 opioid-only group; p=1.00).
• Over the full week, the opioid-only group took more opioid pills on average: 11.7 tablets (SD 10.8) versus 7.9 tablets (SD 6.9) in the group that also had ibuprofen (p=.05).
• The ibuprofen group also took more NSAID tablets overall, 15.4 (SD 10.4) versus 7.8 (SD 11.8) in the opioid-only group (p=.001) — because 20 of the 40 opioid-only patients (50%) chose to buy their own over-the-counter NSAID anyway, mainly to cut back on narcotics.
• Side effects (nausea, vomiting, or constipation) in the week after surgery hit 35% of the opioid-only group versus 17.5% of the ibuprofen-plus-opioid group.
• Satisfaction with pain control at 1 week was high in both groups and not significantly different: 9.0 out of 10 with ibuprofen added (SD 1.0), 8.6 out of 10 with opioid alone (SD 1.8, p=.26).
• No patient in either group asked for a refill of pain medication, and no patients dropped out of the study.

What it does not report

Pain or medication use beyond 1 week post-op. · Return to work. · Return to sport. · Driving. · Sleep. · Range of motion or any shoulder function score (e.g. ASES, SANE). · Recurrence of instability or other longer-term surgical outcomes.

Read the paper → · checked 2026-08-10

Operation studied

arthroscopic Bankart repair; open Bankart repair protocols were excluded from the review

Reported at

0 to 39+ weeks post-op (protocol-recommended milestones, from sling removal through return to game competition)

What it reports

• Across the 30 protocols, the sling was worn for an average of 4.8 weeks (range not given by the paper as a whole distribution, only mean ± 1.8 weeks). 24 of 30 protocols (80%) recommended a sling alone, and 9 of 30 (30%) also called for a period of no arm movement at all, averaging 2.8 weeks (± 1.6).
• Guided passive external rotation to about 20-30 degrees typically began at 3.6 weeks (± 1.6). Full passive external rotation was targeted by a mean of 9.1 weeks (± 2.6) in the paper's results text - though the same paper's abstract and summary table list this same milestone as 9.2 weeks (± 2.8), an inconsistency within the paper itself.
• Full passive range of motion in all directions was targeted by a mean of 9.2 weeks (± 2.8).
• Active-motion exercises typically started at 5.4 weeks (± 1.8), with full active range of motion targeted by a mean of 12.2 weeks (± 2.8).
• Non-overhead sport-specific activity was recommended starting at a mean of 15 weeks (± 4.2). A throwing progression (where specified) started around 19.3 weeks.
• Only 10 of 30 protocols (33.3%) gave any timeline for return to sport at all; among those, the mean was 32.4 weeks (± 9.3). Only 3 of 30 (10%) gave an estimate for return to full game competition; among those, the mean was 39.3 weeks (± 7.6).
• Strength milestones varied widely across protocols: resistance-band work at a mean of 5.6 weeks (± 2.1), push-ups at 11.1 weeks (± 2.2), and bench press at a mean of 18 weeks (± 8.5).
• The paper's overall conclusion: rehab protocols after arthroscopic Bankart repair were 'highly variable,' including when compared against a published consensus protocol (the ASSET guideline).

What it does not report

No pain scores of any kind - this paper never tracks patients, it only reviews written protocol documents. · No actual patient recovery outcomes - every figure above is what a protocol targets or recommends, not what real patients achieved. · No data on repair failure, re-tear, or surgical success/complication rates. · Driving and sleep are not addressed anywhere in the paper. · Return to work (non-sport) is not addressed. · No comparison of return-to-sport timing by contact vs. non-contact or overhead vs. non-overhead athletes - the paper notes only that one of the 30 protocols was written specifically for throwers.

Read the paper → · checked 2026-08-10

Operation studied

Primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and revision arthroscopic Bankart repair, compared against open Latarjet reconstruction, for recurrent anterior glenohumeral (shoulder) instability

Measures

VAS (pain) (0-10, higher = worse) · ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) (0-100, higher = better) · SANE (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) (0-100, higher = better) · VR-12 (Veterans RAND 12-item health survey) (not stated in the visible abstract, higher = better)

Reported at

6 wk, 3 mo, 1 yr, 2 yr

Follow-up

up to 2 years postoperative (mean follow-up not stated in the abstract)

What it reports

• This study used a multicenter registry to compare recovery after three shoulder-instability surgeries: primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (787 people), revision arthroscopic Bankart repair done because a first repair had failed (36 people), and open Latarjet surgery (75 people).
• People who had open Latarjet surgery reported significantly less pain (VAS) than people who had a first-time arthroscopic Bankart repair, at 6 weeks (p=0.03), 3 months (p=0.01), and 2 years (p<0.05) after surgery. The abstract states these differences were statistically significant but does not print the actual pain scores at these timepoints.
• Looking at the first two years overall, primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and open Latarjet gave nearly equal improvements in pain (VAS) and shoulder function (ASES, SANE, VR-12 scores).
• People who needed a revision (second) arthroscopic Bankart repair had worse outcomes at 1 and 2 years after surgery than people having their first Bankart repair.

Not visible to us

The actual VAS pain values (means/SDs) for each group at 6 weeks, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years — the abstract gives only the statistical comparison (p-values) between primary Bankart and Latarjet, not the numbers themselves. · The actual ASES, SANE, and VR-12 scores at each timepoint. · Patient demographics (age, sex, sport/activity level). · Surgical technique details (anchor count/type, graft fixation for Latarjet, rehab protocol). · Complication and re-revision/redislocation rates. · Statistical methods, tables, and figures. · Discussion and limitations sections.

Read the paper → · checked 2026-08-10

Operation studied

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) with suture anchors, 4–7 anchors per patient (mean 5.9 ± 0.7); double-row technique for large bony Bankart lesions; concomitant bony Bankart repair in 15, SLAP repair in 12, HAGL repair in 6

Measures

Rowe score (0-100, higher = better) · Japan Shoulder Society Shoulder Instability Score (JSS-SIS) (0-100, higher = better) · JSS Shoulder Sports Score (JSS-SSS) (0-100, higher = better) · Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) (0-48, higher = better) · American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) (0-100, higher = better) · Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) (0-90, higher = better)

Reported at

preop, final follow-up (in-person exam for range of motion; telephone survey for subjective scores) — single follow-up assessment, not serial

Follow-up

mean 44.5 ± 19.6 months (range 24–85 months)

What it reports

• Rowe instability score rose from 40.7 out of 100 before surgery to 96.6 out of 100 at final follow-up, on average, across 50 patients.
• The Japan Shoulder Society Shoulder Instability Score rose from 56.3 to 96.7 out of 100.
• The Japan Shoulder Society Shoulder Sports Score rose from 50.0 to 93.7 out of 100.
• 47 of 50 patients (94%) reached the minimum clinically important improvement on these scores.
• At final follow-up the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score averaged 47.5 out of 48, the ASES score averaged 99.4 out of 100, and the ASOSS score averaged 86.4 out of 90.
• 2 of 50 patients (4.0%) had a repeat dislocation or subluxation after surgery — 1 contact athlete and 1 noncontact-nonoverhead athlete.
• All 50 patients (100%) returned to sport in some form.
• 38 of 50 patients (76%) returned to sport at the same level or higher than before their injury, with no shoulder complaints.
• 2 patients could only return to practice, not competition.
• Average time to return to play was 6.6 months (SD 2.7, range 3–18 months).
• Average time to return to competition was 9.3 months (SD 4.0, range 6–24 months).
• Average time to a complete return to pre-injury level was 10.6 months (SD 4.3, range 8–24 months).
• Complete return rate differed by sport type: 82.3% of contact athletes (14 of 17), 59.1% of dominant-hand overhead athletes (13 of 22), and 100% of noncontact-nonoverhead athletes (11 of 11) — a statistically significant difference (p=0.026).
• Time to complete return also differed by sport type: 8.3 months for contact athletes, 13.0 months for overhead athletes, 10.8 months for noncontact athletes (p=0.021).
• Among patients who did not fully return, the reasons given were: instability complaints (2), anxiety about full ability (2), slight pain (2), motion restriction (2), and indefinite/vague complaints (4).

What it does not report

No numeric pain scale (e.g. VAS or NRS out of 10) is reported anywhere in the paper. · No week-by-week or serial outcome data — only a single preop measurement and a single final follow-up measurement (mean 44.5 months later). · No return-to-work, return-to-school, return-to-driving, or sleep-quality data of any kind. · No comparison to non-surgical (conservative) treatment or to other surgical techniques (open Bankart, Latarjet).

Read the paper → · checked 2026-08-10

Operation studied

Arthroscopic Bankart repair, by a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon (open Bankart and bony procedures such as Latarjet were excluded)

Measures

SANE (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) (0-100, higher = better) · GRoC (Global Rating of Change) (-7 to +7, higher = better) · SST (Simple Shoulder Test) (0-12, higher = better)

Reported at

single retrospective survey at minimum 12 months post-op; RTW and return-to-activity times were patient-recalled at that survey

Follow-up

12 to 49 months (range on day of survey; no mean given)

What it reports

• 31 patients who had an arthroscopic Bankart repair were identified in the hospital's database; 17 could be reached by phone at least 12 months later (follow-up ranged from 12 to 49 months) and answered a survey about their recovery.
• 16 of the 17 patients (94%) had returned to work by the time of the survey.
• Across all 17 patients, the median time to return to work was 7 weeks (range 1 to 20 weeks).
• The 9 office workers returned to work in a median of 2.5 weeks (range 1 to 17 weeks).
• The 7 physical/manual-labor workers returned to work in a median of 12 weeks (range 4 to 20 weeks). The paper's Results section calls this office-vs-physical gap statistically significant, p = 0.0239.
• Return to physical activity (exercise/sport) took longer than return to work: a median of 5 months overall (range 2 to 12 months) — 4.5 months (range 2-10) for office workers and 5.5 months (range 3-12) for physical workers.
• At final follow-up, shoulder function scored a median SANE (0-100 scale) of 90 (range 80-100).
• Global Rating of Change (GRoC, -7 to +7 scale) was a median of 6 (range 0-7).
• Simple Shoulder Test (SST, 0-12 scale) scored a median of 12 (range 7-12) — every patient answered yes to all 12 items, so this score could not be used to test for a correlation with RTW time.
• How good patients said they felt did not line up with how fast they returned to work: RTW time versus SANE showed r=-0.41 (p=0.1164), and RTW time versus GRoC showed r=-0.16 (p=0.5643) — neither reached statistical significance.
• Office workers and physical workers scored the same on SANE, GRoC and SST — the paper states job type changed how fast people got back to work, not how good they felt about their shoulder.

What it does not report

Weekly or repeated pain scores (no VAS/NRS reported anywhere in the paper). · Complication rates or re-dislocation / recurrent instability rates. · Range of motion or strength measurements. · Return to driving. · Return to sport specifically (only the broader 'return to physical activity' is reported). · Sleep quality. · A sample-size or power calculation.

Read the paper → · checked 2026-08-10