Outcomes of the Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Chronic Anterior Shoulder Instability: Patients With Prior Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Primary Cases

Primary Open Latarjet Procedure Versus Revision to Open Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

Although the Latarjet operation may be performed as a revision surgery for anterior shoulder instability, the high recurrence rate of anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has led some to advocate for performing the Latarjet procedure as a primary stabilization surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the intermediate-term outcomes after primary open Latarjet (PLJ) and revision to open Latarjet (RLJ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients who underwent either PLJ or RLJ procedures for anterior shoulder instability between 2014 and 2023. Patients with less than 1 year of follow-up, seizure history, multidirectional instability, concurrent rotator cuff repair, or the absence of preoperative imaging were excluded. Glenoid bone loss (GBL), the width of Hill-Sachs lesions, recurrent dislocations, and reoperations were assessed.

RESULTS

The study included 29 patients, with 12 undergoing PLJ procedures and 17 undergoing RLJ procedures. The mean duration of follow-up was similar for the two groups (4.7 vs 4.6 years, P=.854). Patients undergoing PLJ procedures demonstrated a higher mean GBL (18.4%) compared with patients undergoing revision (10.5%; P=.035); however, there was no significant difference in Hill-Sachs lesion size (14.2 vs 10.4 mm, P=.374). After stratifying according to GBL, the groups undergoing PLJ and RLJ procedures had similar recurrent dislocation rates (8.3% and 11.8%, respectively; P=1.0) and reoperation frequency (25.0% and 23.5%, respectively; P=1.0).

CONCLUSION

The PLJ and RLJ groups had comparable rates of recurrent dislocations, complications, and reoperations, emphasizing the value of considering Latarjet procedures as revision surgery after unsuccessful primary arthroscopic stabilization. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(X):xx-xx.].

The Arthroscopically Guided Bristow-Latarjet Procedure With Cortical Button Fixation: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Despite improved visualization, the use of arthroscopic surgery to perform the Latarjet procedure has not decreased the rates of complications and glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) in the long term. Many of the reported complications are related to the use of screws for bone block fixation with freehand drilling.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term (at a minimum 10-year follow-up) clinical and radiological outcomes of the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure using a posterior guided drilling technique and suture button for coracoid bone graft fixation.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent the arthroscopic Bristow-Latarjet procedure with suture button fixation between 2011 and 2013 were reviewed by 2 independent evaluators. Complications and revision surgery were recorded, and we evaluated patient-reported outcomes including subjective scores, recurrence of shoulder instability (dislocation or subluxation), range of motion limitations, and return to sports. Patients had radiographs taken at least 10 years after surgery to assess glenohumeral OA according to the Samilson-Prieto classification system and computed tomography scans to assess bone block positioning and healing.

RESULTS

A total of 65 consecutive patients (68 shoulders) with a mean follow-up of 135 months (range, 120-156 months) were included. The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 ± 8 years; 7 patients had previous failed Bankart repair. At follow-up, 94% (64/68) of the shoulders had no recurrence of instability. The 4 cases of instability recurrence were traumatic and occurred at 3 weeks (a fall), 4 months, 2 years, and 7 years after surgery. No hardware failures, coracoid fractures, or neurological complications were observed. Overall, 61 patients (94%) were still participating in sports, with 44 (68%) at the same or higher level. Range of motion showed nonsignificant restrictions in external rotation with the arm at the side (7° ± 9°) and with the arm at 90° of abduction (9° ± 10°) compared with the contralateral side. Additionally, 11 shoulders (16%) had some residual anterior apprehension on clinical examination. At last follow-up, 77% (47/61) of the shoulders had no OA development or progression. Previous failed Bankart repair was a risk factor for the development of OA. Patients with OA had significantly lower Subjective Shoulder Value scores (79% vs 91%, respectively; P = .01) and decreased external rotation with the arm at the side (40° vs 65°, respectively; P = .001) compared with patients with no or little OA.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopically guided Bristow-Latarjet procedure with suture button fixation is a safe and durable surgical treatment method for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, allowing a high rate of return to sports without significant motion restrictions and no or little OA in the long term.

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.

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND

This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB).

METHODS

LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629).

CONCLUSIONS

When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary vs. revision arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction with distal tibial allograft for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction (AAGR) used for primary vs. revision surgery for addressing anterior shoulder instability with bone loss.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review on consecutive patients who underwent AAGR from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received AAGR for anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. Exclusion criteria included patients with incomplete primary patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), multidirectional instability, glenoid fracture, nonrigid fixation and concomitant humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament, or rotator cuff repair. Our primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores. Secondary outcomes included postoperative Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) scores, complications, recurrence of instability and computed tomographic (CT) evaluation of graft position, resorption, and healing.

RESULTS

There were 73 patients (52 primary and 21 revision) finally included. Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative WOSI and DASH scores. The primary group had significantly better postoperative WOSI and DASH scores at final follow-up when compared to the revision group (WOSI: 21.0 vs. 33.8, P = .019; DASH: 7.3 vs. 17.2, P = .001). The primary group also showed significantly better WOSI scores than the revision group at the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points (P = .029, .022, and .003, respectively). The overall complication rate was 9.6% (5 of 52) in the primary group and 23.8% (5 of 21) in the revision group. Both groups showed good graft healing and placement in the anterior-to-posterior and mediolateral orientation and had a similar rate of graft resorption and remodeling. There was no difference between the groups in the remainder of the CT measurements.

CONCLUSION

Functional outcome scores and stiffness were significantly worse in patients undergoing an AAGR procedure after a failed instability surgery when compared with patients undergoing primary AAGR. There were no differences in postoperative recurrence of instability or radiographic outcomes. As a result, AAGR should be considered as a primary treatment option within current treatment algorithms for shoulder instability.

Clinical Significance Thresholds in Primary and Revision Latarjet Procedures With Comparable Outcome Achievements

BACKGROUND

Given the variability across populations and settings, defining the MCID and the PASS for the Rowe and ASOSS scores and patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet it is essential to have accurate benchmarks relevant to these groups when interpreting clinical results.

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain during sports, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), and Rowe scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treatment of shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and January 2020, a retrospective review of 149 patients undergoing primary Latarjet (n = 82) and revision Latarjet (n = 67) to treat shoulder instability was performed in a single institution. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The delta was defined as the change between the pre- and postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

The distribution-based MCIDs after primary Latarjet were 1.1, 7.5, and 9.6 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the MCID thresholds were 93.9%, 98.7%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds after primary Latarjet were ≤1, ≥90, and ≥85 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The percentages of patients who achieved PASS thresholds were 82.9%, 89%, and 86.5% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The distribution-based MCIDs after revision Latarjet were 0.6, 6.2, and 3.4 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved MCID thresholds were 89.3%, 100%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds were ≤3, ≥87, and ≥86 after revision Latarjet for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the PASS thresholds were 88%, 88%, and 91% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study identified useful values for the MCID and PASS thresholds in VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treating shoulder instability. Most patients achieved MCID and PASS benchmarks, indicating successful primary and revision Latarjet procedure outcomes. These metrics can serve as valuable parameters when analyzing parameters in future studies and have the potential to enhance patient care by optimizing treatment strategies and surgical decision making.

Clinical outcomes, return to sport, and complications after isolated primary Latarjet versus Latarjet as a revision procedure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this review was to compare clinical outcomes, return to sport (RTS), and complications in comparative studies examining patients undergoing primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the revision setting following soft tissue stabilization.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of level I to III human clinical studies reporting clinical outcomes (Visual Analogue Pain Scale [VAS]), RTS metrics, and complications in patients following primary versus revision Latarjet procedures. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies, consisting of 1170 patients (n=1179 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.4 years, consisting of 91.9% males (n=1083/1179 shoulders), were identified. Mean final follow-up was 46.4 (mean range, 7.3-72.2) months. A total of 748 primary and 431 revision Latarjet procedures were analyzed. Complications were reported in 9.6% (range, 0%-24.2%) of patients undergoing primary and 20.2% (range, 0%-40.7%) in patients undergoing revision procedures (p=0.22). There was no significant difference in the RTS rate between patients undergoing primary (87.3%; range, 83.8%-92.1%) versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (78.9%; range, 60%-100%) (p=0.08). Moreover, no significant difference in postoperative VAS was observed in patients undergoing primary versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (p=0.21). Recurrent shoulder subluxation was significantly greater in patients undergoing revision (12.0%; n=31/259 shoulders; range, 0%-20.7%) compared to primary procedures (3.3%; n=27/511 shoulders; range, 0%-9%) (p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

Patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet demonstrated overall similar rates of complications and return to sport. Of clinical importance, Latarjet as a revision procedure possessed a risk of recurrent subluxation 3.6 times higher than primary Latarjet. While effective, patients should be counseled regarding the differing prognosis between Latarjet as a primary or revision procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does previous arthroscopic Bankart repair influence coracoid graft osteolysis in Latarjet procedure? A case-control study with computed tomography scan data

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is commonly performed in the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability and is also indicated as a salvage procedure for recurrence after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Although this procedure has shown success, there has been an increased awareness of complications in recent studies, especially graft osteolysis. Most relevant research has focused on the pathophysiology, incidence, or location of graft osteolysis or the risk factors for graft osteolysis; however, the data are limited to primary Latarjet procedures. This study aimed to investigate the effect of previous arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery on coracoid bone graft osteolysis in the Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study analyzed data from patients who underwent primary Latarjet procedures or revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Clinical outcome measures included range of motion, the Subjective Shoulder Value, and the Rowe score. Volumetric analysis of each transferred coracoid graft was performed using early postoperative and late postoperative computed tomography scan data, and the amount of graft osteolysis was then calculated as the percentage of volume reduction of each graft.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study, with 24 patients in the primary Latarjet group (group I) and 8 patients in the revision Latarjet group (group II). The mean age of the patients was 32.5 ± 7.7 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 52.1 ± 8.9 months. Both study groups showed significant improvement in the Subjective Shoulder Value compared with baseline (P < .05). Comparison of postoperative clinical outcome measures showed no significant difference in any outcome parameter between the 2 study groups (P > .05). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. A positive apprehension sign was present in 6 patients (25%) in group I and 4 patients (50%) in group II (P > .05). Analysis of radiologic data revealed that all patients underwent some degree of graft osteolysis, with varying osteolysis ratios between 12% and 98%. The mean osteolysis ratio of the coracoid graft was 67.3% ± 22.6% in group I and 69.4% ± 25.6% in group II, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that a considerable amount of coracoid graft osteolysis is observed after both primary Latarjet procedures and revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair did not seem to have a significant influence on the amount of graft osteolysis, and both primary and revision Latarjet procedures showed satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Significant Increase in Early Reoperation After Latarjet-Bristow Procedure Versus Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the 30-day outcomes, including length of stay, short-term complications, hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, and death after arthroscopic Bankart (AB) and Latarjet.

METHODS

Patients in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database who had undergone either AB or Latarjet-Bristow (LB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability from 2012 to 2018 were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to address any potential demographic differences. The 30-day incidence of postoperative complications were compared, and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify risk factors associated with the incidence of post-operative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 7,519 patients were identified, with 6,990 (93.0%) undergoing AB and 529 (7.0%) LB. After propensity score matching, the baseline demographics were not significantly different (P > .05). There was no significant difference in rate of total adverse events between the AB and LB cohorts (P = .06). There was a significant difference in the rate of return to the operating room between LB (1.9%) when compared to AB (0%) (P < .001). Of reoperations, 40% were due to need for revision stabilization (0.8% of all LB cases) and 40% were for irrigation and debridement. There was also a significant difference in operative time (AB = 87 minutes, LB = 131 minutes; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall 30-day complication rates were low for both groups, with similar rates among AB and LB patients. However, there was a statistically significant increased rate of short-term reoperation or revision stabilization in the LB cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in female patients: A case series and matched-pair analysis

Background

The objective of this study was to retrospectively report on the outcomes of female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure.

Methods

Female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure with minimum 1 year follow-up were identified and contacted to obtain Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and return to sport (RTS) data. Eligible females were then matched 1:1 with a male counterpart based on laterality and age (± 3 years), and outcomes compared.

Results

A total of 20 female patients with a mean follow-up of 73.8 months reported postoperative NPRS and SSV scores of 2.2  ±  2.3 and 69.3  ±  22.0, respectively. Of the nine athletes, 3 (33%) reported a successful RTS at a mean of 9 months. Four patients (20.0%) required reoperation at a mean of 27.1 months. The matched analysis demonstrated similar NPRS scores between male and female patients and a trend towards lower SSV scores and rates of RTS.

Conclusion

At mid-term follow-up female patients reported pain levels similar to female-specific literature reports, but overall low subjective shoulder function and RTS. Compared to propensity-matched males, females reported similar levels of pain, lower shoulder function, and lower rates of RTS, however, differences did not reach statistical significance.

Level of Evidence

IV, retrospective case series.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The role of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be established.

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, recurrences, and complication rates of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet as a primary procedure.

DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and underwent arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization between 2009 and 2018. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on whether Latarjet was performed after a previous instability surgery (revision) or as a primary surgery (primary). Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome (CMSO) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) were assessed pre- and postoperatively with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. In addition, pre- and postoperative levels of sports activity, dislocations, subluxations, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (n = 62 revision; n = 35 primary), with a mean age of 31.0 ± 8.8 and 29.4 ± 7.6 years old in the revision and primary Latajet group, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up in the revision group was 32 months (24-53) and 35.5 months (27.7-42.2) in the primary Latarjet group. No significant differences between groups were observed in Rowe score (revision = 91.4, primary = 94.1; P = .223), CMSO score (revision = 90.7, primary = 94; P = .105), and SANE (revision = 85.8, primary = 87.3; P = .683) postoperatively. However, the postoperative difference in the WOSI score between the revision and primary Latarjet groups was nearly significant (510 ± 334 vs 403 ± 343, respectively; P = .05). Four (6.4%) postoperative dislocations were reported in the revision and 1 (2.8%) in the primary Latarjet group (P = .14). Patients in the revision group had a lower return to the previous level of sports participation (P = .008) and decreased external rotation with the arm by the side compared with the primary Latarjet group (P = .000).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery is a reasonable surgical option in failed Bankart repair cases. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. However, a decreased level of postoperative sports participation and external rotation with the arm by the side can be expected.

Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Latarjet has become an increasingly popular treatment option for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. With the reported complication rates for primary Latarjet surgery, there are concerns about the complications of Latarjet as a revision surgery. It remains unclear if poor results after previous surgical management can be improved with revision Latarjet as well as with primary Latarjet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on 3 databases for studies that compared primary Latarjet with revision Latarjet used after failed arthroscopic stabilization or failed free bone block procedures. From the included studies, demographic data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included for data analysis. Compared with the primary Latarjet cohort, revision Latarjet cohorts had a higher infection rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; RR 0.46, P = .039). The primary Latarjet group showed a greater rate of return to sport (89.7% vs. 80.5%; RR 1.12, P = .41) and less subjective feeling of instability (12.6% vs. 20.9%; RR 0.60, P = .085) compared with the revision Latarjet group; however, this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in complication rates, reoperation, recurrence, and range of motion between primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet groups. Clinical outcome scores such as visual analog scale and Rowe scores were not significantly different between the cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment.

Effect of open versus minimally invasive surgery on postoperative wound site complications in patients with recurrent shoulder instability: A meta-analysis

The Latarjet procedure is the accepted method of operation for patients with anterior shoulder instability. However, as arthroscopy becomes more and more popular, more and more patients are being treated with minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of anteriorly unstable shoulder. This research aims to compare the curative effects of arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) and open Latarjet (OL) on postoperative anterior shoulder instability. Our hypothesis is that arthroscopy will produce better results than open surgery. During the study, a review was conducted on four main databases, including EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Six cohort studies comparing AL with OL in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability were included. Patients who were operated by open technique up to 2023 were referred to as OL and those who underwent arthroscopic surgery were referred to as AL. Comparison was made between the two methods of operation. The statistical analysis was done with RevMan 5.3. The analysis included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and postoperative wound infections. A total of six studies were included for analysis under inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 798 patients, 476 was AL group and 322 was OL group. No statistical significance was found on the incidence of postoperative wound infection in the patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-7.31; p = 0.67) and the VAS score after surgery (mean difference [MD], 0.70; 95% CI, -0.67 to 2.06; p = 0.32) for patients. However, it has now been demonstrated that arthroscopy is a safe and viable alternative. The only drawback of arthroscopic Latarjet surgery is probably that it has a long learning curve and requires a lot of practice from the surgeon.

Previously failed Bankart repair and the duration from first dislocation to surgery were the risk factors associated with the level of return to sports after coracoid transfer

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine the rate of different levels of return to sports (RTS) in athletes undergoing the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure and the factors associated with the level of RTS.

METHODS

The study was performed retrospectively on patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability who underwent the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The RTS rate, the level of return and the timing of return were assessed. Additionally, factors such as preoperative basic information, clinical outcomes, graft position, graft healing and graft absorption were analysed to investigate their correlation with the level of RTS. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the factors affecting the level of RTS.

RESULTS

In total, this study included 182 shoulders of 177 athletes undergoing the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure. Of these patients, 142 (78.0%) shoulders of 137 athletes were enrolled, with a mean of 3.3-year follow-up. At the final follow-up, 134 (94.4%) shoulders were able to RTS, 123 (86.6%) shoulders were able to RTS to the pre-injury level, 52 (36.6%) shoulders could be completely "forgotten" without any psychological barrier during exercise. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the variable associated with RTS at the pre-injury level as previously failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (p < 0.001). As for the "forgetting" operated shoulder, the duration from first dislocation to surgery was a significant independent predictor (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Although a large majority of athletes were able to RTS at the pre-injury level after the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure, about two-thirds of the athletes felt difference in shoulders on both sides and could not completely "forget" the operated shoulder during exercise. Previously failed Bankart repair and the duration from first dislocation to surgery were the risk factors associated with the level of RTS after the modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair provides better stability and return to sports, but worse postoperative pain and external rotation limitations with more complications, compared to revision Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical results of revision Bankart repair versus the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in databases, such as Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies tool. Studies for failed Bankart repair with revision Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure were included. The pain VAS, ROWE score, rate of return to sports and preinjury level of sports, recurrent instability, range of motion, and complications were compared. Additionally, the pain VAS, ROWE score, forward flexion, and external rotation at side were subjected to a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the systematic review. The functional outcomes in terms of the ROWE score, recurrent instability, return to sports, and the preinjury level of sports was better in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (ROWE score, 91 vs. 86.7; recurrent instability rate, 3.5% vs. 14.4%; return to sports rate, 100% vs. 87.9%; return to preinjury level of sports rate, 89.9% vs. 74.9%; all P < 0.001). However, the results of postoperative pain and the postoperative limitation of external rotation at side were worse in the Latarjet procedure group than those in the revision Bankart repair group (pain VAS, 1.4 vs. 0.8; postoperative external rotation at side, 38° vs. 60°; all P < 0.001). In addition, the majority of the complications occurred in the Latarjet procedure group. In the meta-analysis, the postoperative ROWE score was significantly higher in the Latarjet procedure group than that in the revision Bankart group (revision Bankart repair: 95% CI 88.9-80.9, I² = 65.70; Latarjet procedure: 95% CI 95.8-88.1, I² = 93.37; P = 0.014). However, the pain VAS, forward flexion, and external rotation at side did not reach the significant level in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared with revision Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure for failed Bankart repair showed better ROWE scores, stability, and return to sports or preinjury level of sports; however, the postoperative pain and the limitation of external rotation at side were worse with more complications.

IRB NO

KUMC 2022-01-024.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

[Chronic posttraumatic shoulder instability]

Chronic posttraumatic shoulder instability is characterized by trauma-associated, recurrent dislocations. Surgical treatment is indicated in most cases but it remains controversial how risk factors should be weighted to decide between arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR), Latarjet or alternative procedures. Known risk factors for recurrence are patient age, hyperlaxity, sports profile and bone loss. Surgical techniques are discussed in detail. The ABR leads to high patient satisfaction and return to sports; however, in association with risk factors, recurrent dislocations are seen even several years later. Latarjet or bone block procedures lead to high patient satisfaction, sustainable stability as a revision procedure, but can also be primarily indicated for chronic instability depending on risk factors. Early complications are more frequent but of a minor nature in most cases. All techniques are known for a serious learning curve. If performed well, they do not seem to increase the risk of arthritis, which is most affected by the number of lifetime dislocations and higher energy trauma.

Surgeon variation in glenoid bone reconstruction procedures for shoulder instability

BACKGROUND

Advances in the understanding and management of glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability have led to the development of alternative bony reconstruction techniques to the Latarjet using free bone grafts, but little is known about surgeon adoption of these procedures. This study sought to characterize surgeon variation in the use of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures for shoulder instability and ascertain reasons underlying procedure choice.

METHODS

A 9-question survey was created and distributed to 160 shoulder surgeons members of the PacWest Shoulder and Elbow Society, of whom 65 (41%) responded. The survey asked questions regarding fellowship training, years in practice, surgical volume, preferred methods of glenoid bone reconstruction, and reasons underlying treatment choice.

RESULTS

All surgeons completed a fellowship, with an equal number of sports medicine fellowship-trained (46%) and shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained (46%) physicians. The majority had been in practice for at least 6 years (6-10 years: 25%; >10 years: 59%). Most (78%) performed ≤10 glenoid bony reconstructions per year, and 66% indicated that bony procedures represented <10% of their total annual shoulder instability case volume. The open Latarjet was the preferred primary reconstruction method (69%), followed by open free bone block (FBB) (22%), arthroscopic FBB (8%), and arthroscopic Latarjet (1%). Distal tibia allograft (DTA) was the preferred graft (74%) when performing an FBB procedure, followed by iliac crest autograft (18%), and distal clavicle autograft (6%). The top 5 reasons for preferring Latarjet over FBB were the sling effect (57%), the autologous nature of the graft (37%), its robust clinical evidence (22%), low cost (17%), and availability (11%). The top 5 reasons for choosing an FBB procedure were less anatomic disruption (58%), lower complication rate (21%), restoration of articular cartilage interface (16%), graft versatility (11%), and technical ease (11%). Only 20% of surgeons indicated always performing a bony glenoid reconstruction procedure in the noncontact athlete with less than 20% glenoid bone loss. However, that percentage rose to 62% when considering a contact athlete with the same amount of bone loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Although open Latarjet continues to be the most popular glenoid bony primary reconstruction procedure in shoulder instability, nearly 30% of shoulder surgeons in the western United States have adopted FBB techniques as their preferred treatment modality--with DTA being the most frequently used graft. High-quality comparative clinical effectiveness research is needed to reduce decisional conflict and refine current evidence-based treatment algorithms.

Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures

Introduction

There is a trend towards arthroscopically treating shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency. Despite this, there remains the option for treatment through an open technique. Multiple bone augmentation options are available for recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Objective

To provide a systematic review of recent studies for recurrent anterior shoulder instability necessitating glenoid bone augmentation specifically through open procedures using coracoid bone or free bone blocks [iliac crest bone autograft/allograft or distal tibia allograft (DTA)].

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting open glenoid bone augmentation procedures with iliac crest, tibia, or coracoid bones within 10 years. Extracted data included study/patient characteristics, techniques, prior surgeries, prior dislocations, radiographic findings, range of motion (ROM), recurrent instability, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.

Results

92 met inclusion criteria (5693 total patients). Six were studies of iliac crest bone, four of DTA, and 84 using the coracoid bone. 29 studies measured postoperative arthritis showing no development or mild arthritis. 26 studies reported postoperative graft position. 62 studies reported ROM noting decline in internal/external rotation. 87 studies measured postoperative instability with low rates. Rowe Scores with noted improvement across 31/59 (52.5%) studies were seen. Common post operative complications included infection, hematoma, graft fracture, nerve injury, pain, and screw-related irritation.

Conclusion

Despite a trend towards arthroscopic management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency, open procedures continue to provide satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, studies have demonstrated safe and efficacious use of free bone block graft options in the primary and revision setting.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.

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.

Defining Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After the Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is one of the most well-established treatment options for anterior shoulder instability. However, meaningful clinical outcomes after this surgery have not been defined.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure and determine correlations between preoperative patient characteristics and achievement of MCID or PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review at 4 institutions was performed to identify patients undergoing primary open Latarjet procedure with minimum 2-year follow-up. Data collected included patient characteristics (age, sex, sports participation), radiological parameters (glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion), and 4 patient-reported outcome measures (collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively): the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The MCID and PASS for each outcome measure were calculated, and Pearson and Spearman coefficient analyses were used to identify correlations between MCID or PASS and preoperative variables (age, sex, sports participation, glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion).

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. The MCID values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were calculated to be 9.6, 12.4, 1.7, and 254.9, respectively. The PASS values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were 86.0, 82.5, 2.5, and 571.0, respectively. The rates of patients achieving MCID were 61.1% for VAS pain, 71.6% for ASES, 74.1% for SANE, and 84.2% for WOSI. The rates of achieving PASS ranged from 78.4% for WOSI to 84.0% for VAS pain. There was no correlation between any of the studied preoperative variables and the likelihood of achieving MCID or PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study defined MCID and PASS values for 4 commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure. These findings are essential for incorporating patient perspectives into the clinical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure and provide valuable parameters for the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.

High rate of return to sport and excellent patient-reported outcomes after an open Latarjet procedure

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to report return to sport, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), subjective outcomes, and complications or failures in patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery performed by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons between August 2006 and November 2018 were included. Prospectively collected data were reviewed. Recurrent instability and revision surgical procedures were recorded. Subjective outcomes included return to sport and fear of reinjury or activity modification as a result of patients' instability history. PROs included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and satisfaction. Age, sex, sports participation, pain, primary vs. revision surgery (prior failed arthroscopic or open Bankart repair), dislocation number, glenoid bone loss, glenoid track concept, and projected glenoid track were evaluated. Failure was defined as an ASES score <70, recurrent dislocation, or revision instability surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 126 shoulders (125 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 28.1 years (range, 15-57 years). Of 126 shoulders, 7 (5.5%) underwent additional procedures prior to final follow-up and were excluded from outcome analyses; failure occurred in 6 of these shoulders. Mean follow-up data at 3.7 years (range, 2-9.3 years) were attained in 86.6% of patients (103 of 119). All PROs significantly improved from preoperative baseline (ASES score, from 69.7 to 90.2; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, from 55.8 to 85.9; and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, from 28.4 to 10.5). PROs did not differ based on sex, sports participation type, dislocation with or without sports, primary vs. revision procedure, and preoperative dislocation number. No correlations existed between PROs and age, glenoid bone loss, or number of previous surgical procedures. On-track lesions (50 of 105, 47.6%) and projected on-track lesions (90 of 105, 85.7%) correlated with better patient satisfaction but not PROs. Despite not having recurrences, 63 of 99 patients (63.6%) reported activity modifications and 44 of 99 patients (44.4%) feared reinjury. These groups had statistically worse PROs, although the minimal clinically important difference was not met. Return to sport was reported by 97% of patients (86 of 89), with 74% (66 of 89) returning at the same level or slightly below the preinjury level. Revision stabilization surgery was required 6 of 126 cases (4.8%), and 6 of 103 shoulders (5.8%) had ASES scores <70.

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet procedure led to significant improvements in all PROs, and overall, 97% of patients returned to sport. Fear of reinjury and activity modifications were common after open Latarjet procedures but did not appear to affect clinical outcomes. On-track and projected on-track measurements correlated with better patient satisfaction but not improved PROs.

Long-Term Results and Failure Analysis of the Open Latarjet Procedure and Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Adolescents

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze the long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repair compared with an open Latarjet procedure in adolescents who are at high risk for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that the long-term stability rate of an open Latarjet procedure would be superior to that of arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Forty eligible patients (41 shoulders) with a mean age of 16.4 years (range, 13 to 18 years) underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, and 37 patients (40 shoulders) with a mean age of 16.7 years (range, 14 to 18 years) underwent an open Latarjet procedure. Of these, 34 patients (35 shoulders) in the Bankart group and 30 patients (31 shoulders) in the Latarjet group with long-term follow-up were compared; the overall follow-up rate was 82%. Clinical and radiographic results were obtained after a mean follow-up of 12.2 years (range, 8 to 18 years).

RESULTS

Treatment failure occurred in 20 shoulders (57%) in the Bankart repair group and in 2 shoulders (6%) in the open Latarjet procedure group (p < 0.001), representing a significantly higher revision rate for instability in the Bankart group (13) compared with the Latarjet group (1) (p < 0.001). In patients without recurrent shoulder instability (15 in the Bankart group and 29 in the Latarjet group), there was a significant improvement in the Constant score (p = 0.006 in the Bankart group and p < 0.001 in the Latarjet group) and Subjective Shoulder Value (p = 0.009 in the Bankart group and p < 0.001 in the Latarjet group), without any significant difference between the 2 groups. Younger age was the only variable significantly correlated with failure following a Bankart repair (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents are at a high risk for treatment failure after Bankart repair, and, therefore, the Latarjet procedure should be strongly considered as a primary procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No Difference in Outcomes After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage or Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABRR) compared with the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with a labral tear and a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent either ABRR or the AL procedure for a diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability with a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Recurrent instability, the visual analog scale score, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and return to work or sport were evaluated.

Results

Our study included 41 patients treated with ABRR and 26 treated with the AL procedure. At final follow-up, there was no difference between patients who underwent ABRR and those who underwent the AL procedure in the reported Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (21.8% vs 28.2%, P = .33) or any of its components, the visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 1.4, P = .32), the Subjective Shoulder Value (78.4 vs 74.5, P = .6062), the rate of satisfaction (81.6% vs 85.6%, P = .54), or whether patients would undergo surgery again (81.6% vs 96.1%, P = .16). Overall, 5 patients in the ABRR group and 2 patients in the AL group had recurrent instability events (12.2% vs 7.8%, P = .70), with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent dislocation (12.2% vs 3.8%, P = .39).

Conclusions

In patients with anterior shoulder instability and a concomitant Hill-Sachs lesion, both ABRR and the AL procedure were shown to be reliable treatments, with a low rate of recurrent instability and excellent patient-reported outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, our study could not determine whether there was critical glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing ABRR, and surgeons should still exercise caution in performing ABRR in patients with high-grade glenoid bone loss or in those with failed prior stabilizations.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Structural and Functional Results of Subscapularis and Conjoint Tendon After Latarjet Procedure at 8-Year Average Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure involves initial dissection through a longitudinal split of the subscapularis tendon with only a final partial closure to accommodate the transferred coracoid bone. Furthermore, by transferring the coracoid bone block to the anterior glenoid, the surgeon completely alters the resting and dynamic route of the attached conjoint tendon. The eventual structural and functional integrity of the subscapularis and conjoint tendons is currently unknown.

PURPOSE

To examine the structural and functional integrity of the subscapularis and the conjoint tendon after the Latarjet procedure at an 8-year average follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Twenty patients with anterior shoulder instability at a mean age of 30 years (range, 19-50 years) underwent the open Latarjet procedure. Clinical examination at the final follow-up included quantitative isometric measurement of abduction and internal rotation strength compared with the nonoperative side. Patients were assessed via radiograph examination and preoperative computed tomography. Final position and healing of the transferred coracoid bone block were evaluated using standard radiographs. At follow-up, the subscapularis and conjoint tendon were evaluated via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with metal artifact reduction techniques and via ultrasound.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 20 shoulders remained stable at the final follow-up; there was 1 redislocation (5%) after 14 months. The mean Rowe score was 83 points (SD, 17.9 points), the mean Constant score was 85 points (SD, 8.1 points), and the Subjective Shoulder Value was 80% (SD, 18%). The mean abduction strength of the operative shoulder was 7.41 ± 2.06 kg compared with 8.33 ± 2.53 kg for the nonoperative side (P = .02). The mean internal rotation strength at 0° for the operative shoulder was 8.82 ± 3.47 kg compared with 9.06 ± 3.01 kg for the nonoperative side (P = .36). The mean internal rotation strength in the belly-press position for the operative shoulder was 8.12 ± 2.89 kg compared with 8.50 ± 3.03 kg (P = .13). Four of 20 shoulders showed mild tendinopathic changes of the subscapularis tendon but no partial or complete tear. One patient exhibited fatty degeneration Goutallier stage 1. Conjoint tendon was in continuity in all 20 shoulders on MRI scans.

CONCLUSION

Abduction, but not internal rotation strength, was slightly reduced after the Latarjet procedure at a mean of 8 years of follow-up. The subscapularis tendon was intact based on ultrasound examination, and the conjoint tendon was intact based on MRI scans. Subscapularis muscle girth relative to the supraspinatus muscle remained intact from preoperative measurements based on MRI scans.

Latarjet After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in Twice the Rate of Recurrent Instability Compared With Primary Latarjet

PURPOSE

To assess recurrent instability of the shoulder following open Latarjet performed as the primary stabilization procedure or as a salvage procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective, comparative cohort study was performed for a consecutive series of patients in the Military Health System who underwent open Latarjet from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. All patients were diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and had a minimum of 2 years of postoperative follow-up. Patients were categorized as either having a primary Latarjet (PL; no prior shoulder stabilization procedure) or salvage Latarjet (SL; ≥1 previous arthroscopic surgical stabilization procedures).

RESULTS

A total of 234 Latarjet procedures were performed in 234 patients. The overall recurrent instability rate was 15.8% (37/234), the overall reoperation rate was 16.7% (36/234), and the overall complication rate was 14.2% (33/234) over a mean 5.0 years of follow-up. There were 99 PL procedures and 135 SL procedures. The SL group had significantly more recurrent instability than the PL group (SL 28/135, 20.7%; PL 9/99, 9.1%; P = .0158). There was no difference in overall reoperation rates (SL 26/135, 19.3%; PL 13/99, 13.1%; P = .2140) or complication rates (SL 20/135, 14.8%; PL 13/99, 13.3%; P = .9101).

CONCLUSION

The rate of recurrent instability following the Latarjet procedure in an active, high-risk population is 15.8%. Primary Latarjet was found to have lower rates of recurrence compared with salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet as a primary operative treatment for traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Objectives

To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males.

Design

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland.

Participants

122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16–25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised.

Interventions

Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI.

Results

91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01998048.

Open Latarjet Procedure in Athletes Following Failed Prior Instability Surgery Results in Lower Rates of Return to Play

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of open Latarjet (OL) in competitive athletes with primary shoulder instability versus those with recurrent instability versus those undergoing OL for failed prior instability surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent OL with a minimum of 24-month follow-up was performed. Additionally, these were pair-matched in a 1:2:1 ratio for age, gender, sport, level of preoperative play, and follow-up length for primary instability, recurrent instability and failed prior instability surgery. Return to sport, the level of return and the timing of return were assessed. Additionally, recurrence, Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Rowe score, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) score, satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again were compared.

RESULTS

After pair-matching, a total of 200 patients were included, with a mean age of 22.7 years and a mean follow-up of 38.8 months. Overall, there was no significant difference in any of the clinical outcome scores (VAS, Rowe, SIRSI, SSV) used for the 3 groups (P > 0.05 for all). However, there was a significantly lower rate of return to play for those undergoing OL because of failed prior instability surgery (88% vs 91% vs 64%, P < 0.0001) and for return at the same or a higher level (66% vs 78% vs 56%, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent instability among the 3 groups (6% vs 5% vs 6%, P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

OL results in excellent clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates for those with primary shoulder instability, those with recurrent instability and those undergoing OL for failed prior instability surgery. However, in those undergoing OL for failed prior stabilization surgery, there was a lower rate of return to play.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III: Retrospective Comparative Study.

Low rate of recurrent instability following the open Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for failed prior stabilization surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to ascertain functional outcomes, recurrence rates and subsequent revision rates following the open Latarjet procedure when performed as a revision procedure.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies where the Latarjet procedure was performed as a revision procedure were included. Clinical outcomes analyzed were: (1) functional outcomes, (2) recurrent instability, (3) revisions, and (4) complications.

RESULTS

The review found 16 studies with 713 shoulders that met the inclusion criteria. 605 of the patients were male (84.9%), with an average age of 28.2 years (15-62) and follow-up of 47.7 months. The most commonly reported functional outcome measure was the Rowe score, with a weighted mean of 92.7. 86/95 patients had good-excellent outcomes (90.4%). 136/143 patients reported return to play (95.1%). 141/161 patients returned to the same level of competition (87.6%). 50 patients experienced recurrence (8.4%). Five patients experienced redislocation (0.9%) and 37 patients experienced subluxation (6.7%). There were 29 revisions (5.1%), with 12 revisions due to recurrence (2.1%). There were 68 total complications, not including recurrence (11%). The most common complications were 13 cases of nerve damage and infection respectively (2.1%). There was 17 cases of new instability arthropathy (6.5%), and 31 cases of residual pain (6.7%).

CONCLUSION

This review shows that the revision Latarjet provides excellent functional outcomes, low rates of recurrence and complications, and a high rate of return to sport among athletes. This results from study can be used to explain the expected outcomes associated with the Latarjet procedure performed as a revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical Outcomes of Shoulder Stabilization in Females With Glenoid Bone Loss

Background

Nearly all studies describing shoulder stabilization focus on male patients. Little is known regarding the clinical outcomes of female patients undergoing shoulder stabilization, and even less is understood about females with glenoid bone loss.

Purpose

To assess the clinical outcomes of female patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with the Latarjet procedure.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

All cases of female patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with ≥15% anterior glenoid bone loss and underwent the Latarjet procedure were analyzed. Patients were evaluated after a minimum 2-year postoperative period with scores of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale.

Results

Of the 22 patients who met our criteria, 5 (22.7%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 17 (77.2%) available for follow-up with a mean ± SD age of 31.7 ± 12.9 years. Among these patients, 16 (94.1%) underwent 1.6 ± 0.73 ipsilateral shoulder operations (range, 1-3) before undergoing the Latarjet procedure. Preoperative indications for surgery included recurrent instability with bone loss in all cases. After a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 22.9 months, patients experienced significant score improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale (P < .05 for all). There were 2 reoperations (11.8%). There were no cases of neurovascular injuries or other complications.

Conclusion

Female patients with recurrent shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss can be successfully treated with the Latarjet procedure, with outcomes similar to those of male patients in the previously published literature. This information can be used to counsel female patients with recurrent instability with significant anterior glenoid bone loss.

Diagnosis and Management of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability

Anterior shoulder instability is the most common form of shoulder instability and is usually because of a traumatic injury. Careful patient selection is key to a favorable outcome. Primary shoulder stabilization should be considered for patients with high risk of recurrence or for elite athletes. Soft-tissue injury to the labrum, capsule, glenohumeral ligament, and rotator cuff influence the outcome. Glenoid bone loss (GBL) and type of bone loss (on-track/off-track) are important factors when recommending treatment strategy. Identification and management of concomitant injuries are paramount. The physician should consider three-dimensional CT reconstructions and magnetic resonance arthrography when concomitant injury is suspected. Good results can be expected after Bankart repair in on-track Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs) with GBL < 13.5%. Bankart repair without adjunct procedures is not recommended in off-track HSLs, regardless of the size of GBL. If GBL is 13.5% to 25% but on-track, adjunct procedures to Bankart repair should be considered (remplissage and inferior capsular shift). Bone block transfer is recommended when GBL > 20% to 25% or when the HSL is off-track. Fresh tibia allograft or lilac crest autograft are good treatment options after failed bone block procedure.

Cuistow: Chinese Unique Inlay Bristow: A Novel Arthroscopic Surgical Procedure for Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability with a Minimum 3-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of nonunion after the Latarjet procedure remains high. The purpose of the present study was to investigate healing and clinical outcomes after a novel arthroscopic coracoid process transfer procedure.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients who underwent the arthroscopic inlay Bristow procedure combined with Bankart repair were identified, and 51 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. The key feature of this technique was that the coracoid process was trimmed and fixed into a trough (5 to 10 mm deep) in the glenoid neck with a metal screw. Bone graft union and positioning accuracy were assessed with use of postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging. Clinical examinations, return to sport, and functional scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] and Rowe scores) were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up (and standard deviation) was 41.5 ± 7.7 months (range, 36 to 48 months). Postoperative CT scans showed that the position of coracoid graft was at 4:10 (from 3:50 to 5:00) (referencing the right shoulder) in the sagittal view. The α angle was 16.4° ± 9.5°, with 4 (7.8%) of 51 screws being over-angulated (α > 25°). On the axial view, the graft position was considered to be flush in 33 patients (64.7%), medial in 11 (21.6%), congruent in 7 (13.7%), and lateral or too medial in none. At 1 year, the coracoid graft had healed in 49 patients (96.1%) and had failed to unite in 2 patients. CT scanning, performed for 47 patients, showed grade-0 osteolysis in 9 patients, grade-1 osteolysis in 21 patients, and grade-2 osteolysis in 17 patients. At the time of the latest follow-up, there was a significant increase in the Rowe score (from 35.5 ± 8.3 to 95.7 ± 7.2) and the ASES score (from 71.2 ± 9.7 to 91.5 ± 4.4), and 87.0% of patients were able to return to sport. No arthropathy was observed in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

After a minimum 3-year follow-up, the arthroscopic inlay Bristow procedure resulted in a high rate of graft healing, excellent clinical outcomes, and a high rate of return to sports.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.