Is Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair a Viable Option? A Systematic Review of Recurrent Instability following Bankart Repair.

: Recurrent shoulder instability following Bankart lesion repair often necessitates surgical revision. This systematic review aims to understand the failure rates of arthroscopic revision Bankart repair. : Following the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO, this systematic review examined twenty-five articles written between 2000 and 2024. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility across three databases, focusing on recurrent instability as the primary endpoint, while also noting functional measures, adverse events, revision operations, and return-to-sport rates when available. : The key surgical techniques for recurrent instability post-Bankart repair were identified, with revision arthroscopic Bankart being the most common (685/1032). A comparative analysis revealed a significantly lower recurrence for open coracoid transfer compared to arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (9.67% vs. 17.14%; < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed between remplissage plus Bankart repair and Bankart repair alone (23.75% vs. 17.14%; = 0.24). The majority of studies did not include supracritical glenoid bone loss or engaging Hill-Sachs lesions, and neither subcritical nor non-engaging lesions significantly influenced recurrence rates ( = 0.85 and = 0.80, respectively). : Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair remains a viable option in the absence of bipolar bone loss; however, open coracoid transfer appears to have lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic Bankart repair, consistent with prior evidence. Further studies should define cutoffs and investigate the roles of critical glenoid bone loss and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions. Preoperative measurements of GBL on three-dimensional computed tomography and characterizing lesions based on glenoid track will help surgeons to choose ideal candidates for arthroscopic revision Bankart repair.