Global Perspectives on Management of Shoulder Instability: Decision Making and Treatment

Salvage Latarjet may provide worse outcomes in terms of recurrent instability and returning to sports compared to primary Latarjet: a systematic review of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure (LP) is performed as a primary stabilization procedure (primary LP) and a salvage procedure when an earlier shoulder stabilization procedure has failed (salvage LP). However, whether primary LP or salvage LP provides better outcomes for anterior shoulder instability remains unknown.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, web of science and Cochrane Library was performed from their inception date to December 4, 2023. Inclusion criteria mainly included the comparison of postoperative outcomes between primary and salvage LP, English language, and full text availability. Two reviewers independently examined the literature, collected data, and evaluated the methodological robustness of the included studies. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to evaluate the quality of nonrandomized studies. Recurrent instability, complications, reoperations, return to sports, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were assessed. Statistical evaluations were conducted using Manager V.5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the systematic review, with 940 shoulders undergoing primary LP and 631 shoulders undergoing salvage LP. Statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP were found in 2 of the 11 and 2 of 4 included studies in terms of recurrent instability and returning to the same sports (RTS) at preinjury level, respectively. In terms of the visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, 2 of the 4, 1 of the 3 and 1 of the 3 included studies reported statistically significant differences in favor of primary LP. Differences were not noticed regarding complications, reoperations, the time to RTS, the Rowe score, the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System, and forward flexion.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that compared with primary LP, salvage LP may provide inferior postoperative outcomes in terms of recurrent instability and the rate of RTS at preinjury level. Primary and salvage LP may yield comparable efficacy in terms of complications, reoperations, the rate of RTS, the time to RTS, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42023492027.

Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure - a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up

Background

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the outcomes following an open Latarjet (OL) procedure at a minimum 15-year follow-up.

Methods

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using 3 databases. Only studies reporting outcomes of OL procedure with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up were included.

Results

Nine studies composed of 326 shoulders (78.2% males) in 313 patients were included (average age 26.9 ± 3.2 years (15-58)), with a mean follow-up of 271.9 ± 69.2 months (180-420) At a minimum 15-year follow-up, 93.5% (286 of 306) patients reported being satisfied with their OL procedure, whilst 86.8% (177 of 204) reported good/excellent outcomes at final follow-up. All nine of the included studies reported an overall rate of recurrent instability was 7.7%, with re-dislocations and subluxation at 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. The rate of surgical revision was 5.15%; 3.5% of cases were revised for recurrent instability. Instability arthropathy was reported across all included studies as 41.0%.

Conclusion

The OL procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Although high levels of radiological instability arthropathy and residual pain are found over the same period, these appear stable from a minimum of 10-year follow-up data.

Level of Evidence

IV; a systematic review of all levels of evidence.

Isolated Primary Latarjet Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in High Rates of Graft Resorption and Glenohumeral Degenerative Changes With Low Rates of Failure at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications after an isolated primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with 2020 PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed databases were queried from database inception through September 2022. The literature search was limited to human clinical studies reporting on postoperative complications and adverse events after a primary Latarjet procedure with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, consisting of 1,797 patients (n = 1,816 shoulders), with a mean age of 24 years were identified. The overall postoperative complication rate ranged from 0% to 25.7%, with the most common complication being persistent shoulder pain (range: 0%-25.7%). Radiological changes included graft resorption (range: 7.5%-100%) and glenohumeral degenerative changes (range: 0%-52.5%). Recurrent instability following surgery was documented in 0% to 35% of shoulders, while the incidence of bone block fractures ranged from 0% to 6% of cases. Postoperative nonunion, infection, and hematomas had a reported incidence rate ranging from 0% to 16.7%, 0% to 2.6%, and 0% to 4.4%, respectively. Overall, 0% to 7.5% of surgeries were reported failures, and 0% to 11.1% of shoulders required reoperation, with a revision rate ranging from 0% to 7.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of complications following the primary Latarjet procedure for shoulder instability was variable, ranging from 0% to 25.7%. High rates of graft resorption, degenerative changes, and nonunion were present while failure and revision rates remained low at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

All-Arthroscopic Glenoid Bone Augmentation Using Iliac Crest Autograft Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: Button Fixation Is a Feasible and Satisfactory Alternative to Screw Fixation

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of all-arthroscopic glenoid bone augmentation surgery using the iliac crest autograft procedure. Furthermore, we sought to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of using screw versus button fixation, in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 134 shoulders with persistent instability were surgically treated with an arthroscopically placed autologous iliac crest bone graft transfer procedure. Preoperative and postoperative clinical follow-up data were evaluated using the range of motion, and the Walch-Duplay, American Shoulder and Elbow Society, and Rowe scores. Radiologic assessment on 3-dimensional computed tomography scans was performed preoperatively, immediately after surgery, as well as postoperatively, at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and at the final follow-up stage. Graft positions, healing, and resorption were evaluated from postoperative images.

RESULTS

This study included 102 patients who underwent arthroscopic iliac crest bone grafting procedure with 2 screws fixation (n = 37; group 1) and 2 button fixation (n = 65; group 2). The mean follow-up period was 37 months. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of clinical scores, shoulder motion range, graft healing, or graft positions on computed tomography scans (P>.05). In group 1, 1 patient showed mechanical irritation and persistent pain around the screw insertion site, being treated through the arthroscopic removal of the screws. The average postoperative bony resorption percentages were 20.3% and 11.2% at 6 months, and 32.4% and 19.3% at 12 months, in group 1 and group 2, respectively. A statistically significant difference was detected between the two groups (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the arthroscopic iliac crest bone grafting procedure for the treatment of chronic osseous anterior shoulder instability, excellent functional results were obtained after both button fixation and screw fixation techniques. In addition, less graft resorption and no hardware-related complications were detected with suture button fixation technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Early Treatment of Shoulder Pathology Is Necessary but Not Enough Is Being Performed

Delayed treatment of shoulder instability results in bone loss requiring more-complicated surgery, in turn resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Similarly, delayed treatment of repairable rotator cuff tears results in irreparable tears requiring more-complicated surgery and resulting in less-optimal outcomes. Delayed treatment of shoulder pathology is a problem. Solutions include education and research investigation.

Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using Transosseous Bone Tunnel Technique With the Adjustable Loop Length Cortical Button Incorporating High-Strength Suture Augmentation for Recurrent Shoulder Instability

Dynamic anterior stabilization using the long head of the biceps tendon is a recently described technique in the management of recurrent shoulder dislocation with subcritical bone loss. This technique involves the transfer of the long head of the biceps to the glenoid, providing sling and hammock effect. The long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon fixation can be accomplished with a variety of implants. We present a modified fixation technique of LHB tendon using transosseous bone tunnel with the adjustable loop length cortical button, incorporating high-strength suture augmentation device in a patient with recurrent glenohumeral instability with limited glenoid bone loss and an engaging Hill-Sachs defect in the humeral head.

Managing Shoulder Instability in the Overhead Athlete

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Shoulder instability in the overhead athlete is a difficult problem because of the balance between necessary laxity for athletic movements and stability of the joint. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the clinical evaluation of shoulder instability in the overhead athlete and present evidence-based management strategies for each subtype of shoulder instability, including novel techniques and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent investigation has shown that throwers and other overhead athletes are more likely to present with subtle subluxation events rather than discrete dislocations as their primary symptom. While overhead athletes with discrete anterior dislocation events are likely to begin with non-operative management, many progress on to surgical intervention. Surgical management of glenohumeral joint instability continues to pose challenges due to the potential for over-tensioning for the sake of stability at the expense of the adaptive laxity that often confers performance benefits in the overhead athlete. Novel, individualized, and sport/position specific approaches are needed to address this complex issue. The optimal management of shoulder instability in the overhead athlete continues to be a controversial topic due to the complex work-up, an increasing number of surgical options with varying indications, and low volume of high-quality studies comparing any of the treatment options. The Anterior Shoulder Instability International Consensus Group guidelines from February 2022 offer the most updated guidelines on work-up and management. Overall, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine the optimal treatment for specific pathologies and aid in creating patient-centered management plans.

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Purpose

To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR).

Methods

Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon’s practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05.

Results

The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Evaluation of factors associated with successful 5-year outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of athletes 5-years post-operatively following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to evaluate factors associated with satisfaction and shoulder function, as defined by subjective shoulder value.

METHODS

A retrospective review of athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, with a minimum of 5-year follow-up was performed. Recurrence, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again, and rate, level and timing of return to play, and Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score were evaluated. Multi-linear regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting postoperative Satisfaction, and SSV level.

RESULTS

Overall, 144 athletes who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair were included, with a mean age of 26.9 years (SD: 8.1), 132 (91.7%) were males, and mean follow-up of 75.7 months. At final follow up, 82.6% were satisfied/very satisfied, and the mean SSV was 85.8 (SD: 14.4). Overall, the rate of return to play was 80.5%, with 63.9% returning at the same level at a mean of 6.2 months (SD: 2.7). Overall, there was 18 (12.5%) had recurrent instability, and a further procedure was performed in 15 (10.4%) patients. Linear regression revealed that the SIRSI score (p < 0.0001), SSV (p < 0.0001), VAS (p < 0.0031), no sleep trouble (p = 0.0129) was associated with satisfaction. Logistic regression revealed whether a patient required revision surgery (p = 0.0029), or had re-dislocation (p = 0.0031) was also associated with satisfaction. Linear regression revealed that the SIRSI score (p < 0.0001), VAS score (p < 0.0001), and no sleep trouble (p < 0.0001), were associated with SSV score.

CONCLUSION

There was a high rate of satisfaction at 5-year follow-up, with excellent patient-reported outcomes and a high rate of return to play among athletes. However, there was a moderate rate of recurrent instability and further revision surgery. This study identified that the SIRSI score, VAS score, no sleep trouble and ability to return to play at the same level were associated with both satisfaction and SSV score.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Editorial Commentary: Double-Sling Transfer of Both the Conjoined Tendons and Long Head Biceps Tendon for Glenoid Bone Loss in Patients With Shoulder Instability Shows Biomechanical Benefit in Shoulder Abduction and External Rotation But May Be Insufficient in Mid-Range Arm Positions

Recurrence of shoulder glenohumeral instability is exacerbated in cases of glenoid bone loss. Surgical bone transfer techniques well address the issue. Innovative soft-tissue tendon transfers may fill the defect plus provide a sling effect. Double-sling transfer of both the conjoined tendons and long head biceps tendon for glenoid bone loss in patients with shoulder instability shows biomechanical benefit in shoulder abduction and external rotation. However, as the sling effect is less pronounced in mid-range arm position, the benefit of double-sling transfer may be insufficient. Moreover, the biomechanical models are limited relative to the complexity of clinical glenohumeral function, and obviously limited to time-zero analysis. We should be careful before we abandon bony augmentation procedures.

[Rebalancing theory of shoulder stability mechanism for the diseases related to the shoulder instability and dysfunction of motion]

OBJECTIVE

To introduce a new theory of shoulder stability mechanism, rebalancing theory, and clinical application of this new theory for the shoulder instability and dysfunction of motion.

METHODS

Through extensive review of the literature related to shoulder instability and dysfunction of the motion in recent years, combined with our clinical practice experience, the internal relation between passive stability mechanism and dynamic stability mechanism were summarized.

RESULTS

Rebalancing theory of shoulder stability mechanism is addressed, namely, when the shoulder stability mechanism is destructive, the stability of the shoulder can be restored by the rebalance between dynamic stability mechanism and passive stability mechanism. When dynamic stability is out of balance, dynamic stability can be restored by rebalancing the different parts of dynamic stability mechanism or to strengthen the passive stability mechanism. When passive stability mechanism is out of balance, passive stability can be restored by rebalancing the soft tissue and bone of the shoulder.

CONCLUSION

Rebalancing theory of shoulder stability mechanism could make a understanding the occurrence, development, and prognosis of shoulder instability and dysfunction from a comprehensive and dynamic view and guide the treatment effectively.

Editorial Commentary: Wider Acceptance of Medical Expert Consensus Research Requires Strict Adherence to Delphi Panel Methodology

The diagnosis and treatment of an anterior glenohumeral instability remains controversial. Currently, there is no universally globally accepted approach. In addition to individual surgeon's experiences and preferences, surgical training, regional differences in patient's expectations, and demands confound decision-making. Evidence-based medicine and large randomized trials are not helpful, as they cannot possibly account for all potential confounders. The Delphi technique is an expert consensus-based evidence approach and a reasonable alternative to randomized trials. It pools the experience of experts in the field in a scientific fashion but has been criticized for only producing the lowest common denominator, resulting in oversimplification of a complex problem. However, this criticism is commonly a result of inadequate execution of the methods rather than the methodology itself. It could be that strict adherence to Delphi methodology could result in greater acceptance of Delphi (rather than "modified" Delphi) findings; a stricter approach also may lead to lower agreement between participating experts.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Bankart Repair-An International Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.

RESULTS

The independent factors identified in the 2 statements that reached unanimous agreement in diagnosis and nonoperative management were age, gender, mechanism of injury, number of instability events, whether reduction was required, occupation, sport/position/level played, collision sport, glenoid or humeral bone-loss, and hyperlaxity. Of the 3 total statements reaching unanimous agreement in Bankart repair, additional factors included overhead sport participation, prior shoulder surgery, patient expectations, and ability to comply with postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that complications are rare following Bankart repair and that recurrence rates can be diminished by a well-defined rehabilitation protocol, inferior anchor placement (5-8 mm apart), multiple small-anchor fixation points, treatment of concomitant pathologies, careful capsulolabral debridement/reattachment, and appropriate indications/assessment of risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 77% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the aspects of patient history that should be evaluated in those with acute instability, the prognostic factors for nonoperative management, and Bankart repair. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the steps to minimize complications for Bankart repair, and the placement of anchors 5-8 mm apart. Finally, there was no consensus on the optimal position for shoulder immobilization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Treatment of anterior shoulder instability: a bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

The treatment of anterior shoulder instability is a focus in the field of sports medicine. While much research has been conducted, few bibliometric studies have been performed in this field. This study analyzed the main characteristics and identified emerging research trends and hotspots related to the treatment of anterior shoulder instability over the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched for (anterior shoulder instability OR anterior shoulder dislocation) AND (treatment OR reconstruction) in ARTICLE (Mesh) in the Web of Science database from 1980 to 2020. We analyzed the keywords, author, institution, country, number of citations, average number of citations, publication year, and partnership of the identified articles. Information about annual publications was analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019; the remaining data were analyzed using VOSviewer version 1.6.11 (Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands) and CiteSpace version 5.7.R2 (Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA).

RESULTS

A total of 1964 articles were published between 1980 and 2020. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, the United States, the United States Department of Defense, and Arcieio were journals, countries, institutions, and authors with the highest numbers of publications. The topic hotspots were instability, shoulder, and dislocation, while the research frontiers were arthroscopic, Bankart repair, Latarjet procedure, risk factors, recurrence, and complications.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of anterior shoulder instability has shown an increasing number of publications each year and achieved great progress. The United States made the most outstanding contributions to this important field. Arthroscopic, Bankart repair, and Latarjet procedures were research hotspots and risk factors, recurrence, and complications were likely to research frontiers.

Modified Dynamic Anterior Stabilization (DAS) and Hill-Sachs Remplissage for the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation

The optimal treatment for recurrent glenohumeral instability is a subject under debate. The recently described arthroscopic technique for dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) fills the treatment indication gap between reconstructive bony procedures and soft tissue stabilization. However, indications for DAS are considered limited or not appropriate for patients with recurrent shoulder dislocations caused by severe bone defects. In this Technical Note, we present a modified all-arthroscopic DAS technique with added infraspinatus and posterior capsule remplissage to correct the extra-articular Hill-Sachs defect in a patient with recurrent dislocations and off-track bony lesions. The patient requested an alternative treatment option, other than the complication-prone Latarjet procedure.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Primary Versus Recurrent Anterior Instability in Athletes Results in Excellent Clinical Outcomes, High Rates of Return to Play, and Low Recurrence Rates

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of athletes who have been treated for either primary or recurrent anterior shoulder instability with arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR for anterior shoulder instability, with a minimum of 24 months’ follow-up, was performed. Those who underwent ABR for primary instability were matched in a 1:1 ratio for age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play to those who underwent ABR for recurrent instability. The rate, level, and timing of return to play (RTP), as well as the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, were evaluated. Additionally, the recurrence rate, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the same operation again were compared.

Results

After analysis of 467 patients, 100 athletes who underwent ABR for primary instability were identified and subsequently pair matched to 100 patients who underwent ABR for recurrent instability, with a mean age of 27.2 years, 87% male patients, 68% collision athletes, and a mean follow-up period of 61.9 months. There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of RTP (80% vs 79%, P = .86) or RTP at the preinjury level (65% vs 65%, P >. 999); however, there was a significant difference in time to RTP (6.9 ± 2.9 months vs 5.9 ± 2.5 months, P = .02). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale score, Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport After Injury score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, patient satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the operation again (P > .05 for all). There was no difference in the rate of recurrent instability after ABR (10% vs 16%, P = .29).

Conclusions

ABR results in excellent clinical outcomes, high rates of RTP, and low recurrence rates for both athletes with primary instability and those with recurrent instability.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for Recurrent Shoulder Instability in Athletes

Background:

In athletes with recurrent shoulder instability, arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the open Latarjet procedure (OL) are commonly indicated to restore stability and allow them to return to play (RTP).

Purpose:

To compare the outcomes of ABR and OL in athletes with recurrent shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of patients with recurrent shoulder instability who underwent ABR and OL and had a minimum 24-month follow-up. Indications for OL over ABR in this population were those considered at high risk for recurrence, including patients with glenohumeral bone loss. The patients were pair-matched in a 1:1 ratio (OL and ABR) by age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play. We evaluated the rate, level, and timing of RTP, and the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score between procedures. Additionally we compared the recurrence rate, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the same surgery again.

Results:

Participants included 62 athletes who underwent ABR and 62 who underwent OL, with a mean follow-up of 47.7 months. There was no significant difference between ABR and OL in rate of RTP, return to preinjury level, time to return, SIRSI score, VAS score, SSV, or patient satisfaction. OL resulted in a significantly lower recurrence rate (1.6% vs 16.1% for ABR; P = .009) and a significantly higher Rowe score (mean ± SD, 90.5 ± 12.2 vs 82.2 ± 20.8 for ABR; P = .008). In collision athletes, there was no significant difference between ABR and OL regarding RTP rate (89.1% vs 94.5%; P = .489) or SIRSI score (70.4 ± 24.8 vs 73.8 ± 19.6; P = .426), but OL resulted in a lower recurrence rate (14.5% vs 1.8%; P = .031).

Conclusion:

ABR and OL resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, with high rates of RTP in athletes. However, lower recurrence rates were seen with OL.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet for First-Time Dislocators in Athletes

BACKGROUND

In athletes with a first-time shoulder dislocation, arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the open Latarjet procedure (OL) are the most commonly utilized surgical procedures to restore stability and allow them to return to play (RTP).

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of ABR and OL in athletes with a first-time shoulder dislocation.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with first-time shoulder dislocation who underwent primary ABR and OL and had a minimum 24-month follow-up. Indications for OL over ABR in this population were those considered at high risk for recurrence, including patients with glenohumeral bone loss. Patients who underwent ABR were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio with patients who underwent OL by age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play. The rate, level, and timing of RTP, as well as the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score were evaluated. Additionally, we compared recurrence, visual analog scale pain score, Subjective Shoulder Value, Rowe score, satisfaction, and whether patients would undergo the surgery again.

RESULTS

Overall, 80 athletes who underwent ABR and 40 who underwent OL were included, with a mean follow-up of 50.3 months. There was no significant difference between ABR and OL in rate of RTP, return to preinjury level, time to return, or recurrent dislocation rate. There were also no differences between ABR and OL in patient-reported outcome scores or patient satisfaction. When collision athletes were compared between ABR and OL, there were no differences in RTP, SIRSI score, or redislocation rate.

CONCLUSION

ABR and OL resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, with high rates of RTP and low recurrence rates. Additionally, there were no differences between the procedures in athletes participating in collision sports.

Athletes diagnosed with anterior and posterior shoulder instability display different chief complaints and disability

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder instability is a common complaint of young athletes. Posterior instability in this population is less well understood, and the standard of care has not been defined. The purpose of the study is to compare index frequency, treatment choice, and athlete disability following an incident of anterior or posterior shoulder instability in high school and collegiate athletes.

METHODS

A total of 58 high school and collegiate athletes (n=30 athletes with anterior instability; n=28 athletes with posterior instability) were included. Athletes suffering from a traumatic sport-related shoulder instability episode during a team-sponsored practice or game were identified by their school athletic trainer. Athletes were referred to the sports medicine physician or orthopedic surgeon for diagnosis and initial treatment choice (operative vs. nonoperative). Athletes diagnosed with traumatic anterior or posterior instability who completed the full course of treatment and provided pre- and post-treatment patient-reported outcome measures were included in the study. The frequency of shoulder instability was compared by direction, mechanism of injury (MOI), and treatment choice through χ² analyses. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the functional outcomes by treatment type and direction of instability (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Athletes diagnosed with anterior instability were more likely to report a chief complaint of instability (70%), whereas those diagnosed with posterior instability reported a primary complaint of pain interfering with function (96%) (P = .001). The primary MOI classified as a contact event was similar between anterior and posterior instability groups (77% vs. 54%, P = .06) as well as the decision to proceed with surgery (60% vs. 72%, P = .31). In patients with nonoperative care, athletes with anterior instability had significantly more initial disability than those with posterior instability (32±6.1 vs. 58±8.1, P = .001). Pre- and post-treatment Penn Shoulder Scores for athletes treated with early surgery were similar (P > .05). There were no differences in functional outcomes at discharge in those treated nonoperatively regardless of direction of instability (P = .24); however, change in Penn score was significantly greater in those with anterior (61±18.7) than those with posterior (27 ± 25.2) instability (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Athletes with anterior instability appear to have different mechanisms and complaints than those with posterior instability. Among those that receive nonoperative treatment, athletes with anterior instability have significantly greater initial disability and change in disability than those with posterior disability during course of care.

Return to play criteria among shoulder surgeons following shoulder stabilization

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to survey the members of North American and European shoulder surgery and sports medicine societies to evaluate their criteria for deciding when an athlete can safely return to play (RTP) following shoulder stabilization surgery.

METHODS

A survey was sent to the members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA), and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow (SECEC). Surgeons were asked which criteria they used to determine when an athlete can return to play following the arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet procedures, with additional questions on how time from surgery and participation in collision sports affect return.

RESULTS

Overall, 317 surgeons responded to the survey. Following arthroscopic Bankart repair, the most common criteria used were time (98.7%), strength (74.8%), and range of motion (70%). The most commonly reported time point was 4 months (43.8%), and the majority used an additional time period, most commonly 2 months (38.2%), before allowing a collision athlete to return to play (75.4%). Interestingly, the addition of a remplissage procedure did not affect decision making regarding RTP in most cases (92.1%). Following the Latarjet procedure, the most common criteria used were time (98.4%), strength (67.5%), and range of motion (65.9%). Less than half reported using imaging to assess for radiographic union before allowing patients to return to play (47%), and the most common modality was plain radiography (80%). The most common time point was 4 months (33.1%), and the majority reported waiting an additional period of time, most commonly by 2 months (25.9%), before allowing a collision athlete to return to play (59.6%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the absence of evidence-based guidelines on when athletes can safely return to play following shoulder stabilization surgery, there exists minimal variability in recommendations between North American and European shoulder surgeons. Further research is required to better define criteria for RTP after the arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet procedures.

Short- and Long-Term Effects of a Scapular-Focused Exercise Protocol for Patients with Shoulder Dysfunctions-A Prospective Cohort

Current clinical practice lacks consistent evidence in the management of scapular dyskinesis. This study aims to determine the short- and long-term effects of a scapular-focused exercise protocol facilitated by real-time electromyographic biofeedback (EMGBF) on pain and function, in individuals with rotator cuff related pain syndrome (RCS) and anterior shoulder instability (ASI). One-hundred and eighty-three patients were divided into two groups (n = 117 RCS and n = 66 ASI) and guided through a structured exercise protocol, focusing on scapular dynamic control. Values of pain and function (shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) questionnaire, complemented by the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) questionnaire) were assessed at the initial, 4-week, and 2-year follow-up and compared within and between. There were significant differences in pain and function improvement between the initial and 4-week assessments. There were no differences in the values of DASH 1st part and SPADI between the 4-week and 2-year follow-up. There were no differences between groups at the baseline and long-term, except for DASH 1st part and SPADI (p < 0.05). Only 29 patients (15.8%) had a recurrence episode at follow-up. These results provide valuable information on the positive results of the protocol in the short- and long-term.

Traditional versus congruent-arc Latarjet anatomic and biomechanical perspective

The congruent-arc Latarjet (CAL) allows reconstruction of a greater percentage of glenoid bone deficit because the inferior surface of the coracoid is wider than the lateral edge of the coracoid used with the traditional Latarjet (TL).

Biomechanical studies have shown higher initial fixation strength between the graft and the glenoid with the TL.

In the TL, the undersurface of the coracoid, which is wider than the medial edge used with the CAL, remains in contact with the anterior edge of the glenoid, increasing the contact surface between both bones and thus facilitating bone consolidation.

The shorter bone distance around the screw with the CAL is potentially less tolerant of screw-positioning error compared to the TL. Moreover, the wall of the screw tunnel is potentially more likely to fracture with the CAL due to the minimal space between the screw and the graft wall.

CAL may be very difficult to perform in patients with very small coracoids such as small women or skeletally immature patients.

Radius of curvature of the inferior face of the coracoid graft (used with the CAL) is similar to that of the native glenoid. This may potentially decrease contact pressure across the glenohumeral joint, avoiding degenerative changes in the long term.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:280-287. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200074

Evidence-based Risk Stratification for Sport Medicine Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Orthopaedic practices have been markedly affected by the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the ban on elective procedures, it is impossible to define the medical urgency of a case solely on whether a case is on an elective surgery schedule. Orthopaedic surgical procedures should consider COVID-19-associated risks and an assimilation of all available disease dependent, disease independent, and logistical information that is tailored to each patient, institution, and region. Using an evidence-based risk stratification of clinical urgency, we provide a framework for prioritization of orthopaedic sport medicine procedures that encompasses such factors. This can be used to facilitate the risk-benefit assessment of the timing and setting of a procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.