Sutures, Screws, Buttons, and Anchors: A Review of Current Bone Graft Fixation Devices for Glenoid Bone Loss in the Unstable Shoulder

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anterior shoulder instability is associated with concomitant injury to several stabilizing structures of the shoulder, including glenoid bone loss. While instability is most common in young athletes and patients with predisposing conditions of hyperlaxity, recurrent shoulder instability can occur throughout various age ranges and may lead to longer term effects including pain and shoulder arthritis. Glenoid bone loss exceeding certain thresholds is generally treated by glenoid reconstruction via bone block augmentation to adequately stabilize the glenohumeral joint. These procedures increase the width of the articular surface on which the humeral head can translate before dislocation and, based on the procedure performed, provide a sling effect via the conjoined tendon, and increase tension to support the anterior capsule. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding bone block fixation techniques.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Various fixation techniques have been utilized to secure bone block transfers. Though screw fixation has traditionally been used for bone block fixation, suture buttons, suture anchors, and all-suture techniques have been utilized in attempts to avoid complications associated with the use of screws. Biomechanical studies report variable force-resistance, displacement, and mode of failure when comparing screw to suture button-based fixation of glenoid bone blocks. Clinical and radiographic studies have shown these novel suture-based techniques to be comparable, and in some cases advantageous, to traditional screw fixation techniques. While screw fixation has long been the standard of care in glenoid bone block procedures, it is associated with high complication rates, leading surgeons to endeavor toward new fixation techniques. In available biomechanical studies, screw fixation has consistently demonstrated high maximal load-to-failure and displacement with cyclic loading. Studies have reported similar clinical and radiographic outcomes in both screw and suture-based fixation methods, with evidence of reduced bone resorption with suture fixation. While suture button fixation is associated with a higher rate of recurrent instability, overall complication rates are low. Future research should address biomechanical shortcomings of suture-based fixation techniques and continue to assess long-term follow-up of patients treated with each fixation method.

Arthroscopically Assisted Anterior Bone Block for Shoulder Instability

Background:

Shoulder instability is a common complaint, with treatment depending on the severity of the bony defect. Advancements in arthroscopic techniques have allowed for a less invasive surgery with decreased postoperative pain, improved graft placement, and better visualization.

Indications:

Large bony defects of the glenoid require bone block augmentation to reduce recurrent instability. In this presentation, arthroscopically assisted anterior bone block was performed with a distal tibial allograft to address recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a large glenoid defect.

Technique Description:

The patient is placed in a lateral decubitus position. Standard arthroscopic portals are made. The bone block is fashioned from a distal tibial allograft. Using a guide, drill holes are placed in the bone block. The guide is inserted from the posterior portal and placed parallel to the joint surface. Using drill sleeves, superior and inferior screw holes are drilled and a metal cannula is left in place to allow for shuttling of suture. Two anchors are placed on the glenoid to allow for capsule labral junction to be brought up to the graft once the graft is in place. The bone block is delivered through a dilated anterior portal and reduced. The sutures are tensioned. A button is placed on each set of looped sutures, a Nice knot is placed into each, and a tensioning device is tensioned. Once compression is achieved, knots are tied to perform final fixation over the buttons. A suture passing device is used to grab inferior capsule and labrum to the priorly placed anchor on the inferior glenoid and tied.

Results:

Arthroscopically assisted anterior bone block for shoulder instability has been demonstrated to have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared with open treatment. However, arthroscopically assisted Latarjet has been shown to have decreased soft tissue disruption and possible improvements in graft placement.

Discussion/Conclusion:

Arthroscopically assisted anterior bone block is a technically demanding surgery but has been shown to have similar outcomes when compared with open treatment. In this video, we demonstrate an arthroscopically assisted anterior bone block for recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Patient Consent Disclosure Statement:

The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Bankart Repair With or Without Concomitant Remplissage Results in Similar Shoulder Motion and Postoperative Outcomes in the Treatment of Shoulder Instability

Purpose

To compare the results of patients who underwent Bankart repair with or without concomitant remplissage for treatment of shoulder instability.

Methods

All patients who underwent shoulder stabilization for shoulder instability from 2014 to 2019 were evaluated. Patients who underwent remplissage were matched to those patients who received no remplissage based on sex, age, body mass index, and date of surgery. Glenoid bone loss and presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion were quantified by 2 independent investigators. Postoperative complications, recurrent instability, revision, shoulder range of motion (ROM), return to sport (RTS), and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Instability, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores) were compared between groups.

Results

Overall, 31 patients who underwent remplissage were identified and matched to 31 patients who received no remplissage at a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 1.8 years. Glenoid bone loss was similar between groups (11% vs 11%, P = .956); however, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions were more prevalent in the patients who underwent remplissage than the patients who received no remplissage (84% vs 3%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in rates of redislocation (remplissage: 12.9% vs no remplissage: 9.7%), subjective instability (45.2% vs 25.8%), reoperation (12.9% vs 0%), or revision (12.9% vs 0%) between groups (all P > .05). Also, there were no differences in RTS rates, shoulder range of motion, or patient-reported outcome measures (all P > .05).

Conclusions

If a patient is indicated for Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage, surgeons may expect shoulder motion and postoperative outcomes similar to those of patients without engaging Hill-Sachs lesions who undergo Bankart repair without concomitant remplissage.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic case series, level IV.

Increased rates of subjective shoulder instability after Bankart repair with remplissage compared to Latarjet surgery

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

Controversy exists as to the ideal management of young active patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, and the Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage are effective surgical options. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent instability and reoperation, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, between Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage surgery patients. The authors hypothesized that there would be no difference in rates of recurrent instability, reoperation, and postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent Latarjet surgery and patients who underwent Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent primary shoulder stabilization for shoulder instability from 2014 to 2019 were screened. Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients were included if arthroscopic surgery was performed in response to anterior shoulder instability. Recurrent instability, revision, shoulder range of motion, return to sport (RTS), and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Instability, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form scores) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 Latarjet patients (age: 29.8 ± 12.1 years, 36 males 7 females) and 28 Bankart repair with remplissage patients (age: 28.2 ± 8.8 years, 25 males 3 females) were included with a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 1.9 years. Patients who underwent Latarjet surgery had larger amounts of bone loss (19% vs. 11%, P < .001), a lower rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (47% vs. 82%, P < .001), and more frequently had a history of chronic shoulder dislocations (88% vs. 43%, P < .001) compared to Bankart repair with remplissage patients. Latarjet patients less frequently reported feeling subjective shoulder instability after surgery (21% vs. 50%, P = .022), which was defined as feeling apprehension or experiencing a shoulder subluxation or dislocation event. There were no differences in rates of postoperative dislocation, revision, reoperation, or RTS, as well as patient-reported outcome scores, between groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in osseous defects, Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients had similar rates of clinical, patient-reported, and RTS outcomes at a mean of 3.3 years postoperatively. Latarjet surgery patients may be less likely to experience subjective shoulder instability postoperatively than patients who undergo Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage as an Alternative to Latarjet for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability With More Than 15% Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of anterior shoulder instability continues to evolve. The clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) in patients with increasing glenoid bone loss (GBL) has not been thoroughly compared with Latarjet.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of REMP versus open Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL. We hypothesized that there would be no difference.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary REMP or Latarjet by 4 shoulder specialists between August 2013 and December 2019 for >15% GBL. Procedure performance was based on shared decision making between the surgeon and patient. Baseline and 2-year postoperative range of motion (ROM) and the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Return to sport, satisfaction, complications, recurrence, and revisions were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were available for study, including 22 who underwent REMP and 25 who underwent Latarjet. Baseline demographic characteristics, ROM, and PROs were similar between the groups. Mean preoperative GBL (REMP 25.8% ± 7.8% vs Latarjet 25.1% ± 9.0%; P = .800) and off-track lesions (REMP 59.1% vs Latarjet 44.0%; P = .302) were similar. Postoperative change in external rotation favored Latarjet (10° ± 22° vs -4° ± 13°; P = .017). Postoperative PROs, return to the sports (86.4% vs 87.5%; P = .99), and satisfaction (95.5% vs 95.8%; P = .99) were similar between groups. There were no recurrent dislocations in either group. One infected hematoma was encountered in the Latarjet cohort.

CONCLUSION

At short-term follow-up, the hypothesis was upheld. REMP and Latarjet provided similar outcomes for patients with >15% GBL, although REMP patients experienced slightly decreased external rotation. Although larger series and longer-term follow-ups are required, remplissage may be considered in patients with >15% glenoid bone loss.

Risk for recurrent instability and reoperation following arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization in a large cross-sectional population

Background

Recurrent shoulder instability is an orthopedic problem with potentially long-term functional ramifications. Although arthroscopic stabilization has become increasingly utilized over open stabilization, optimal surgical intervention to minimize recurrent instability remains controversial.

Methods

The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for all cases of open and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization from 2010 to 2019. Utilization trends were aggregated after identifying cohorts of 107,210 and 13,217 patients who respectively underwent arthroscopic or open stabilization using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Subsets from those cohorts with laterality-specific International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for shoulder instability were used to evaluate 2-year rates of recurrent instability (presence of shoulder dislocation or revision open or arthroscopic stabilization). Linear regression and chi-squared analysis were used to analyze utilization trends and to compare recurrent instability.

Results

Arthroscopic stabilization comprised 90% of all stabilization procedures with annual utilization continuing to increase into 2019. Latarjet utilization increased from 15% to 42% of all open stabilization procedures while open Bankart repair utilization decreased from 56% to 35%. The rate of recurrent instability was 10.2% after arthroscopic stabilization and 12.3% after open stabilization (P = .01). Rates of redislocation (4.0% vs. 2.6%, P < .01), conversion to shoulder arthroplasty (1.2% vs. 0.4%, P < .01), and revision open stabilization (6.8% vs. 2.3%, P < .01) after index open stabilization were significantly higher than after index arthroscopic stabilization. There was no difference in revision stabilization or dislocation rates between open procedures.

Conclusion

Despite increasing utilization of coracoid transfer, arthroscopic stabilization is still the dominant modality used for surgical treatment of shoulder instability and in our analysis, showed lower 2-year rates of dislocation, revision open stabilization, and conversion to shoulder arthroplasty.

High Rate of Return to Work by 3 Months Following Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate and duration of return to work in patients undergoing Latarjet for failed soft-tissue stabilization or glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing Latarjet from 2005 to 2015 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Patients completed a standardized and validated work questionnaire, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index Survey, and a satisfaction survey.

RESULTS

Of 89 eligible patients who had Latarjet, 67 patients (75.3%) responded to the questionnaire, of whom 51 patients (76.1%) were employed within 3 years before surgery (mean age: 29.9 ± 11.8 years; mean follow-up: 54.6 ± 11.9 months) and had an average glenoid bone loss of 14.5 ± 6.1%. Fifty patients (98.0%) returned to work by 2.7 ± 3.0 months postoperatively; 45 patients (88.2%) patients returned to the same level of occupational intensity. Those who held sedentary, light, moderate, or heavy intensity occupations returned to their previous occupation at a rate of 100.0%, 93.3%, 90.0%, and 66.7% (P = .2) at a duration of 1.2 ± 1.6 months, 1.8 ± 1.9 months, 3.1 ± 3.5 months, and 6.5 ± 4.1 months (P = .001), respectively. The average postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score was 70.9 ± 34.2. Fifty patients (98.0%) noted at least "a little improvement" in their quality of life following surgery, with 35 patients (68.6%) noting great improvement. Furthermore, 49 patients (96.1%) reported being satisfied with their procedure, with 25 patients (49.0%) reporting being very satisfied. Four patients (7.8%) returned to the operating room, with 1 patient (2.0%) requiring arthroscopic shoulder stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 98% of patients who underwent Latarjet returned to work by 2.7 ± 3.0 months postoperatively. Patients with greater-intensity occupations had a longer duration of absence before returning to their preoperative level of occupational intensity. Information regarding return to work is imperative in preoperative patient consultation to manage expectations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Shoulder Latarjet Surgery Shows Wide Variation in Reported Indications, Techniques, Perioperative Treatment, and Definition of Outcomes, Complications, and Failure: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review and compare the surgical indications, technique, perioperative treatment, outcomes measures, and how recurrence of instability was reported and defined after coracoid transfer procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature examining open coracoid transfer outcomes was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the Cochrane registry, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from 2010 to 2020. Inclusion criteria included open coracoid transfer techniques, including the Bristow or Latarjet technique, full text availability, human studies, and English language.

RESULTS

A screen of 1,096 coracoid transfer studies yielded 72 studies, which met inclusion criteria with a total of 4,312 shoulders. One study was a randomized controlled trial, but the majority of them were retrospective. Of those, 65 studies reported on postoperative outcome scores, complication rates, revision rate, and recurrence rates. Forty-three reported on range of motion results. Thirty studies reported on primary coracoid transfer only, 7 on revision only, and 30 on both primary and revision, with 5 not reporting. Average follow-up was 26.9 months (range: 1-316.8 months). Indications for coracoid transfer, technique, perioperative care, complications, and how failure was reported varied greatly among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet and coracoid transfer surgery varies greatly in its indications, technique, and postoperative care. Further, there is great variation in reporting of complications, as well as recurrence and failure and how it is defined. Although coracoid transfer is a successful treatment with a long history, greater consistency regarding these factors is essential for appropriate patient education and surgeon knowledge.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Managing Bone Loss in Shoulder Instability-Techniques and Outcomes: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the literature published over the past 5 years related to the management of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability.

RECENT FINDINGS

During recent years, there has been a focus on patients at high risk for failure following soft tissue anterior stabilization (Bankart repair). A growing body of evidence suggests that anterior capsulolabral repair is insufficient in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss with an off-track Hill Sachs lesion. In such cases, the addition of a remplissage procedure to a Bankart repair or a bone-block augmentation to the glenoid (Latarjet, for example) is often advocated to decrease the risk of recurrent instability. Recent studies have also evaluated the role of alternative bone-block procedures in comparison to the Latarjet, outcomes with arthroscopic and open techniques as well as various fixation methods and radiological outcomes (bone graft resorption, glenohumeral osteoarthritis). Advances in our understanding of subcritical glenoid bone loss and the glenoid track concept have significantly impacted clinical decision making and treatment selection. The development of arthroscopic techniques has allowed for minimally invasive and safe arthroscopic bone-block procedures as an alternative to open procedures. Further research related to free bone-block procedures will inform long-term outcomes between these procedures and the gold standard Latarjet. Additionally, high-quality evidence is lacking to identify the ideal treatment for patients with glenoid subcritical glenoid bone defect. Variability in outcome reporting suggests the need to standardize outcome measures for future instability trials.

Significant Changes in the Diagnosis, Injury Severity and Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability Over Time in a U.S. Population

Purpose

To report the annual incidence of anterior shoulder instability (ASI) diagnosis, injury severity, and surgical stabilization in a U.S. population.

Methods

An established U.S. geographic database was used to identify patients < 40 years old with diagnoses of ASI from 1994-2016. Medical records were reviewed to obtain patient demographics, histories, imaging results, and surgical details. Age- and sex-specific incidence rates were calculated and adjusted to the 2010 U.S. population. Poisson regression was performed to examine trends by timeline, sex and age.

Results

The study population consisted of 652 patients with ASI and a mean age of 21.5 years (range, 3.6-39.5). Comparing 2015-2016 to 1994-1999, we found an increase in the number of dislocations (from 1.0-1.9; P = 0.016) and total instability events (from 2.3-3.4; P = 0.041) per patient prior to presentation to a physician. There was a trend in increased diagnosis of bony Bankart and/or Hill-Sachs on MRI over time, with these lesions documented in 96% of patients undergoing MRI in 2015-2018 compared to 52.9% in 1994-1999 (P < .001). The use of arthroscopic procedures increased and peaked in 2005-2009 (90% of surgical cases performed). The proportion of open Latarjet procedures increased from 2010-2014 (14%) and 2015-2018 (31%).

Conclusions

The age- and sex- adjusted incidence of ASI diagnosis in a U.S. population from 1994-2016 is comparable to that demonstrated in Canadian and European populations. This study demonstrates an increasing number of instability events prior to surgical evaluation, which may correlate with patients’ more commonly presenting with bone loss and requiring more aggressive surgical treatment or that ASI is being more frequently cared for and documented by present-day orthopedic surgeons.

Level of Evidence

Level III, cross-sectional study.

Revision guided suture-button bone block stabilization of the shoulder in the presence of significant retained glenoid metalwork

Aim

Positioning and fixation of the bone block during revision anterior stabilization of the shoulder, in the presence of significant retained glenoid metalwork, can be challenging. We present the results of a series of patients who underwent a revision bone block procedure secured with double suture buttons using a drill guide system, the position of which was calculated from a preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan.

Materials and methods

We undertook a revision bone block stabilization of the shoulder, using a guided double suture-button fixation, in 10 patients with significant retained glenoid metalwork from previous procedures. A preoperative CT scan was used to determine a position for the guide to allow a safe drill trajectory that would avoid any retained metalwork. A coracoid transfer was undertaken in 4 patients and an Eden-Hybinette in 6. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up clinically and using the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value score. Bone block position and healing was assessed by a CT scan at 6 months. The median follow-up was 36 months (range, 24-47 months).

Results

There were 3 female and 7 male patients with a median age of 24.5 years (17-49 years). At final follow-up, the mean Oxford Shoulder Instability Score had decreased from 25.9 (range, 21-35) to 5.8 (range, 3-14) (P < .005). The mean Subjective Shoulder Value score had risen from 87.1 (range, 10-60) to 80 (range, 60-90) (P < .05). All of the patients considered their shoulder to be stable apart from 1 patient. There had been no redislocations. The bone block positioned in the glenoid lower quadrant had healed for all of the patients on CT at 6 months.

Conclusion

Guided suture-button fixation of the bone block during revision anterior stabilization of the shoulder, in the presence of significant retained glenoid metalwork, provides a satisfactory outcome in terms of shoulder stability, graft position, and healing.

The Effect of Screw Design and Cortical Augmentation on Insertional Torque and Compression in Coracoid-Glenoid Fixation in a Sawbones Model

PURPOSE

To compare screw insertional torque and coracoid-glenoid compression from 4 fixation techniques with different screw design parameters and cortical augmentation for the Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

Simulated Latarjet procedures were performed with 4 fixation techniques using laminated polyurethane blocks with dimensions similar to the coracoid-glenoid construct. The groups included DePuy Synthes Mitek 3.5-mm partially threaded screws with top hats, Arthrex 3.75-mm fully threaded screws with a 2-hole plate, Arthrex 3.75-mm fully threaded screws, and Smith & Nephew 4.0-mm partially threaded screws. Screws were inserted using a digital torque-measuring screwdriver to determine maximum insertional torque. Pressure-sensitive film was used to measure the maximum contact pressure and the effective pressure distribution (EPD) between the coracoid and glenoid; the EPD represents the percentage of the film's surface area that experienced pressure greater than 10 MPa. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between the 4 fixation groups for each variable measured. The 2 cortically augmented systems produced significantly higher maximum insertional torque than the non-cortically augmented systems (P < .001 for both). The 3.75-mm screws with a 2-hole plate yielded significantly higher contact pressures than the 4.0-mm screws (P = .028). This group also had a high EPD, with a mean value more than double the values of the non-cortically augmented systems (P = .037 and P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cortically augmented fixation methods showed higher maximum insertional torque, maximum contact pressure, and EPD between the surfaces of the coracoid and glenoid in this Sawbones model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Various implants are available for the Latarjet procedure, but their biomechanical characteristics have not yet been fully elucidated. Graft fracture and nonunion represent 2 modes of failure that may be related to insertional torque and coracoid-glenoid compression. This study compared screw insertional torque and compression achieved using 4 fixation techniques with different screw design parameters and cortical augmentation in a Sawbones model.

A Comparison of Physical Therapy Protocols Between Open Latarjet Coracoid Transfer and Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

CONTEXT

Recent studies examining return to sport after traumatic shoulder instability suggest faster return-to-sport time lines after bony stabilization when compared with soft tissue stabilization. The purpose of the current study was to define variability across online Latarjet rehabilitation protocols and to compare Latarjet with Bankart repair rehabilitation time lines.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Online searches were utilized to identify publicly available rehabilitation protocols from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited academic orthopaedic surgery programs.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

RESULTS

Of the 183 ACGME-accredited orthopaedic programs reviewed, 14 institutions (7.65%) had publicly available rehabilitation protocols. A web-based search yielded 17 additional protocols from private sports medicine practices. Of the 31 protocols included, 31 (100%) recommended postoperative sling use and 26 (84%) recommended elbow, wrist, and hand range of motion exercises. Full passive forward flexion goals averaged 3.22 ± 2.38 weeks postoperatively, active range of motion began on average at 5.22 ± 1.28 weeks, and normal scapulothoracic motion by 9.26 ± 4.8 weeks postoperatively. Twenty (65%) protocols provided specific recommendations for return to nonoverhead sport-specific activities, beginning at an average of 17 ± 2.8 weeks postoperatively. This was compared with overhead sports or throwing activities, for which 18 (58%) of protocols recommended beginning at a similar average of 17.1 ± 3.3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Similar to Bankart repair protocols, Latarjet rehabilitation protocols contain a high degree of variability with regard to exercises and motion goal recommendations. However, many milestones and start dates occur earlier in Latarjet protocols when compared with Bankart-specific protocols. Consequently, variability in the timing of rehabilitation goals may contribute to earlier return to play metrics identified in the broader literature for the Latarjet procedure when compared with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION TAXONOMY (SORT)

Level C.

Bone block procedures for glenohumeral joint instability

Glenoid bone loss is a well established cause of instability and long term morbidity if not adequadely addressed. Anterior glenohumeral instability due an anterior glenoid defect is significantly more common, and for many years has been well treated with open anterior bone block augmentation procedures, most commonly the latarjet procedure. However, with refinement of this technique and some interest in reducing morbidity associated with iliac crest bone harvest, arthroscopic bone block procedures with allograft has become more popular. In this article we will review some of the key available evidence. We will also review management of the less common and more challenging posterior glenoid defects associated with posterior instability.