Learning Curve for Arthroscopic Shoulder Latarjet Procedure Shows Shorter Operating Time and Fewer Complications with Experience

Current Trends and Outcomes for Open vs. Arthroscopic Latarjet

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper aims to analyze and compare the existing research on open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for treating anterior shoulder instability. The review will assess different factors such as graft positioning, functional outcomes, complications, and return-to-play rates for both approaches. The study's primary goal is to establish which technique yields superior outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have suggested that arthroscopic Latarjet surgery can produce outcomes similar to open surgery regarding functional scores and patient satisfaction. Some research indicates that arthroscopy may even provide slightly better results. Both techniques have similar complication rates, but arthroscopy requires a longer learning curve and operating time. It is crucial to ensure the proper placement of the graft, and some studies suggest that arthroscopy may be better at achieving accurate positioning. Both open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures are equally effective in treating shoulder instability. While arthroscopy offers a faster recovery time and causes less soft tissue damage, it requires surgeons to undergo a steeper learning curve. The optimal graft position for both techniques is still debated. More long-term data is needed to establish superiority. Future research should compare approaches in larger cohorts and identify outcome-affecting factors to improve the treatment of shoulder instability. Both techniques are promising, but arthroscopy may be a better option as the procedure evolves into a less invasive reconstruction.

Editorial Commentary: Suture Button Fixation for the Latarjet Procedure Is Superior to Screw Fixation

An increasing body of evidence suggests that suture button fixation is comparable with screw fixation in Latarjet and potentially associated with reduced graft resorption. Suture button fixation may facilitate performing the Latarjet procedure, particularly when done in an arthroscopic manner. The use of suture button fixation technique theoretically facilitates improved positioning of the graft on the glenoid, as it frees the surgeon from the potential of the soft-tissue envelope to impact positioning of the graft, which can occur with screw-based guides. The bone graft can be shuttled into an optimal position and then tensioned with relative ease in comparison with screw-based techniques. Suture button fixation results in lower complication rates compared with screw fixation; almost one third of the screw fixation complications are hardware-related, and screw fixation results in a high rate of hardware removal. Moreover, the arthroscopic Latarjet suture button literature is published by experienced surgeons. Arthroscopic Latarjet has a significant learning curve, reducing the translatability of studies that report superior findings with any one technique. The generalizability of results reminds us that evidence-based medicine should be practiced through the lens of not only patient preferences, but also through an honest appraisal of a surgeon's own ability.

Arthroscopic Coracoid Transfer in the Lateral Decubitus Position is Safe and Effective at Short-Term Follow-Up

Purpose

To report on operative and clinical outcomes in a series of shoulders treated with arthroscopic Latarjet performed in the lateral decubitus position.

Methods

Patients with shoulders that underwent arthroscopic Latarjet in the lateral decubitus position were identified. Data were retrospectively collected, including patient demographics, operative times, intra- and postoperative complications, and clinical and functional outcomes. Descriptive statistics were performed.

Results

Eighteen shoulders in 17 patients were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 14 ± 12.1 months (range, 4-39 months). The mean operative time for all procedures was 132.2 ± 18.0 minutes, and the mean operative time for the first half of the cohort was significantly longer than that of the second half (141.6 ± 14.2 minutes vs 122.8 ± 17.0 minutes, P = .02). There were no intraoperative complications, and no patients required a conversion to open surgery. One patient experienced a recurrent dislocation after a traumatic event but was able to be treated nonoperatively. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were able to be collected on 8 of 18 patients (44.4%). Although all PROMs demonstrated improvements postoperatively, only the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Index displayed a statistically significant increase (P < .05). Five of 8 (62.5%) shoulders demonstrated bony fusion on postoperative computed tomography scan. Of those eligible, 100% of patients returned to sport or felt that they could return if they wanted to.

Conclusions

The arthroscopic Latarjet is an effective procedure for managing glenohumeral instability and can safely be performed in the lateral decubitus position.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior guided system and suture-button fixation enables more precise bone block positioning in the axial plane versus anterior screws fixation

PURPOSE

Adequate position of the bone block during arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is critical for an optimal functional outcome. However, this procedure is complex with a long learning curve. Our aim was to compare the bone block position between a dedicated glenoid posterior instrumentation and suture button fixation versus an anterior screw fixation, on a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan.

METHOD

Seventy-nine consecutive patients operated on for an anterior shoulder instability were included in this retrospective study. The same surgeon performed arthroscopically the Latarjet procedure either with an anterior drilling and screw fixation (Group A), or with a specific posterior glenoid guide pin, a posterior drilling, and a suture cortical button fixation (Group B). Evaluations were made by two independent observers. The position was evaluated by CT scan in the axial and sagittal planes. Learning curves with operative time, complications and clinical outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in Group A and 44 in Group B. In Group A, 27 bone blocks were flush (87.1%) and 38 in Group B (92.7%) (p < 0.01). In Group A, 72% of the bone block height was below the equator and 76%, in Group B (ns). The mean operating time was 123 ± 32.5 min in Group A and 95 ± 34.1 min in Group B (p < 0.0001). At the final follow-up, the mean aggregate Rowe score was respectively 94.6 ± 10.4 and 93.1 ± 9.8 points in Groups A and B. The mean aggregate Walch-Duplay score was respectively 94.2 ± 11.6 and 93.4 ± 10.6 points in Groups A and B. There were 11 complications (31.4%) in Group A and five complications (11.3%) in Group B (ns).

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior drilling guided system and suture-button fixation allows more precise positioning in the axial plane than with anterior drilling and screw fixation. This posterior-guided procedure could reduce intraoperative and short-term complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

All Arthroscopic Salvage Technique for Intraoperative Vertical Split Coracoid Graft Fracture in Latarjet Procedure-Technical Note

Intraoperative vertical coracoid graft fractures during the Latarjet procedure are well-described complications, which typically have a poor prognosis or may necessitate further iliac crest bone grafting for stabilization. The vertical split coracoid fractures are reasoned to be caused by excessive tightening of the screws, poor bone quality, especially in females and the smaller dimension of the coracoid graft. In this technical note, we propose an arthroscopic salvage technique for salvaging the fractured coracoid graft and to avoid the need for additional bone graft, thereby reducing morbidity to the patient. We use two double-loaded, all-suture anchors (Stryker, India) on either side of the split coracoid graft, and double-pulley configuration of suture tightening is done, providing compression and stability to the fractured graft.

Anterior Shoulder Instability and Open Procedures: History, Indications, and Clinical Outcomes

The shoulder, being the most mobile joint in the human body, is often susceptible to dislocations and subluxations more so than other joints. As such, shoulder instability constitutes a common complaint among patients worldwide, especially those who are young, participate in contact sports, and have increased innate flexibility in their joints. Management options in the setting of instability vary between conservative and surgical options that aim to mitigate symptoms and allow return of function. Surgical options can be arthroscopic and open, with a general shift among surgeons towards utilizing arthroscopic surgery in the past several decades. Nevertheless, open procedures still play a role in managing shoulder instability patients, especially those with significant bone loss, recurrent instability, coexisting shoulder pathologies, and high risk of failure with arthroscopic surgery. In these clinical settings, open procedures, like the Latarjet procedure, open Bankart repair, glenoid bone augmentation using iliac crest autograft or distal tibial allograft, and salvage options like glenohumeral arthrodesis and arthroplasty may show good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates. Each of these open procedures possesses its own set of advantages and disadvantages and entails a specific set of indications based on published literature. It is important to cater treatment options to the individual patient in order to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Future research on open shoulder stabilization procedures should focus on the long-term outcomes of recently utilized procedures, investigate different graft options for procedures involving bone augmentation, and conduct additional comparative analyses in order to establish concrete surgical management guidelines.

Modified Arthroscopic Bristow Procedure: Screw Fixation Without Subscapularis Split

In the presence of bone loss, the Bristow or Latarjet procedure is used to alleviate anterior glenohumeral instability. The techniques have gradually improved under arthroscopy. However, such an arthroscopic procedure has a steep learning curve, lengthy operation time, and considerable risk of complications, inhibiting its rapid development. The current method of modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure with screw fixation without subscapularis split reduces surgical time, reduces the risk of nerve damage consequences, and is simple to apply.

Open Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The open Latarjet (OL) procedure and arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure are able to treat recurrent anterior shoulder instability (RASI) with high success rates.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and postoperative revisions and complications between the OL and AL procedures in the treatment of RASI.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve and include cohort studies comparing the OL and AL procedures for RASI. Clinical outcomes were compared, and results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.

Results

Eleven clinical trials with 1217 patients were included. There were no differences between the procedures in pain score, Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, external rotation, persistent apprehension, instability, recurrence, revisions attributed to recurrent instability, overall complications, wound infection, hematoma, graft complications, screw-related complications, or osteoarthritis. When compared with the OL procedure, the AL procedure had a significantly lower nonunion rate (OR, 9.92; 95% CI, 1.71 to 57.71; P = .01); however, the AL procedure had a longer operation time (MD, -24.49; 95% CI, -48.44 to -0.54; P = .05), lower Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (MD, 97.27; 95% CI, 21.91 to 172.63; P = .01), higher revision rate (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.95; P = .04), and greater screw deviation (MD, -6.41; 95% CI, -10.25 to -2.57; P = .001).

Conclusion

For most outcome measures, no difference was seen between the OL and AL procedures. The AL procedure had a lower Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and a higher revision rate and appeared to have a significant learning curve. However, the AL procedure resulted in a lower nonunion rate.