Comparison Between Modified Latarjet Performed as a Primary or Revision Procedure in Competitive Athletes: A Comparative Study of 100 Patients With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

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 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.

Efficacy and safety of the Latarjet procedure for the treatment of athletes with glenoid bone defects ≥ 20%: a single-arm meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The shoulder joint is the most commonly dislocated joint in the human body, and the recurrence rate exceeds 50% after nonsurgical treatment. Although surgical treatment reduces the recurrence rate, there is controversy regarding the optimal surgical approach. Previous studies suggest that the Latarjet procedure yields favourable outcomes for specific populations at risk of recurrence, such as competitive athletes with significant glenoid defects. However, most of the existing related research consists of nonrandomized controlled trials with small sample sizes, and there is a lack of strong evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Athletes with ≥ 20% glenoid defects were selected for inclusion. The following data were extracted: general patient information, instability rates, return to sports (RTS) rates, imaging features (graft positioning rate and graft healing rate), functional assessments [Rowe score, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System(ASOSS), visual analogue scale (VAS), forward flexion function, and external rotation function], and complications.

RESULTS

After excluding suspected duplicate cases, a total of 5 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The studies involved a total of 255 patients, including 237 males (93%) and 18 females (7%). The average age at the time of surgery was 25.4 ± 8.5 years. All the studies had a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, with an average follow-up time of 48.7 ± 18.9 months. The pooled rate of return to sport (RTS) was 94.3% (95% CI: 87.3%, 98.8%), and 86.1% (95% CI: 78.2%, 92.5%) of patients returned to their preoperative level of activity. The pooled redislocation rate was 1.1% (95% CI: 0%, 3.8%). Regarding the imaging results, the combined graft retention rate was 92.1% (95% CI: 88.1%, 95.5%), and the graft healing rate was 92.1% (95% CI: 88%, 95.4%). Postoperative functional evaluation revealed that the combined Rowe score, ASOSS score, and VAS score were 93.7 ± 6.5 points, 88.5 ± 4.4 points, and 1.1 ± 10 points, respectively. The forward flexion and external rotation angles were 170.9 ± 6.9 degrees and 65.6 ± 4.5 degrees, respectively. After excluding one study with unclear complications, the combined complication rate was 9.4% (95% CI: 1.0%, 23.6%).

CONCLUSION

For athletes with shoulder instability and a total of ≥ 20% glenoid bone defects, the Latarjet procedure can achieve excellent functional outcomes, with the majority of patients returning to preoperative levels of sports activity. This procedure also leads to a low recurrence rate. Therefore, the Latarjet procedure has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment.

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.

Primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the setting of previously failed Bankart repair: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to compare the outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair versus those undergoing the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A systematic search in Pubmed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Cohort studies comparing outcomes in the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery versus the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair were included.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1913 patients were included. There was a significantly lower rate of recurrent instability in those with a Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 12.1%, p ​= ​0.007). There was also a significantly lower rate of complications with the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (6.2% vs 10.2%, p ​= ​0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the rate of revision surgery in favour of the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 10.9%, p ​= ​0.02). However, there were similar rates of redislocations (2.8% vs 3.4%, p ​= ​0.82) and return to play (67.7% vs 78.5%, p ​= ​0.30) between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for a previously failed Bankart repair resulted in higher rates of complications, recurrent instability, and revisions than the Latarjet procedure performed as a primary procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Level III studies.

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.

Complications Related to Latarjet Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In cases of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a glenoid defect, Latarjet procedures are widely used for stabilization. Although complications with this procedure have been reported, few studies have comprehensively analyzed issues related to the Latarjet procedure.

PURPOSE

To identify the overall complication rate of the Latarjet procedure used for anterior shoulder instability and to compare the rate of complications between arthroscopic and open approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed by using the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. Data on complications were extracted and classified as intraoperative, postoperative, or instability-related for further analysis. Quality assessments were performed with criteria from the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). A quantitative synthesis of data was conducted to compare the complication rates between arthroscopic and open approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 35 articles were included in this analysis. The MINORS score was 11.89. A total 2560 Latarjet procedures (2532 patients) were included. The overall complication rate was 16.1% (n = 412). The intraoperative complication rate was 3.4% (n = 87) and included a 1.9% (n = 48) incidence of nerve injuries and a 1.0% (n = 25) incidence of iatrogenic fractures. Screw problems, vascular injuries, and conversion arthroscopic to open surgery each occurred at a rate of <1%. The postoperative complication rate was 6.5% (n = 166), and the most common complication was nonunion (1.3%; n = 33). The instability-related complication rate was 6.2% (n = 159) and included a 1.5% (n = 38) rate of redislocation, a 2.9% (n = 75) rate of positive apprehension test, and a 1.0% (n = 26) rate of instability. Overall, 2.6% (n = 66) of patients required an unplanned secondary operation after the initial surgery. The arthroscopic approach was associated with a higher rate of intraoperative complications compared with the open approach (5.0% vs 2.9%; P =.020) and a lower rate of instability-related complications (3.1% vs 7.2%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability results in an overall complication rate of 16.1% and a reoperation rate of 2.6%. However, serious complications at short-term follow-up appear rare. When the arthroscopic approach was used, the rate of intraoperative complications was higher, although instability-related complications were lower when compared with the open approach.

Classic Versus Congruent-Arc Latarjet Procedures

Glenohumeral instability remains a frequent pathology, specifically in athletes and active patients. As such, several treatment options have been described. In the setting of significant glenoid bone loss (i.e., >20%), off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, and failed previous soft-tissue-based repairs, glenoid bone-augmentation techniques must be considered. These techniques restore stability by a triple blocking effect of the bony graft, the capsulolabral complex repair, and the dynamic sling effect of the conjoined tendon. The classic Latarjet procedure consists in performing a coracoid osteotomy along with the conjoined tendon attachment followed by transfer and fixation to the anterior glenoid, positioning the lateral surface of the coracoid to be flush with the articular side. Then, a modification of this technique defined as "congruent-arc Latarjet" (CAL) was described. This approach involves rotating the coracoid process 90° along its longitudinal axis using the inferior surface to recreate the native glenoid arc. Biomechanical studies have discussed advantages and disadvantages of these techniques. The CAL allows a greater glenoid surface area, which may be relevant in patients with increased glenoid bone loss. However, the bone contact area is reduced, which increases the technical difficulty of screw positioning with an increased risk of graft fragmentation. The classic Latarjet technique has a greater initial fixation strength between the graft and the glenoid and a greater potential for bone consolidation due to the broader contact bone area. Excellent clinical and sports outcomes with low recurrence rates have been observed in both techniques. Imaging findings have exhibited high bone block healing and no difference in graft placement, but CAL demonstrated a greater incidence of fibrous or nonunion rates and errors in screw fixation. Finally, while similar early complications have been reported, long-term outcomes are still needed in CAL for comparing osteoarthritis progression. These results emphasize that either technique can be considered to manage glenohumeral instability when appropriately indicated.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of the Traditional Latarjet Versus the Congruent Arc Modification for the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Meta-analysis

Background:

Few studies have compared clinical outcomes between the traditional Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability and the congruent arc modification to the Latarjet procedure.

Purpose:

To systematically evaluate the literature for the incidence of recurrent instability, clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, and complications for the traditional Latarjet procedure and the congruent arc modification and to compare results of each search.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies published between January 1990 and October 2020 that described clinical outcomes of the traditional Latarjet and the congruent arc modification with a follow-up range of 2 to 10 years. The difference in surgical technique was analyzed using a chi-square test for categorical variables, while continuous variables were evaluated using a Student t test.

Results:

In total, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria: 20 studies describing the traditional Latarjet procedure in 1412 shoulders, and 6 studies describing the congruent arc modification in 289 shoulders. No difference between procedures was found regarding patient age at surgery, follow-up time, Rowe or postoperative visual analog scores, early or late complications, return-to-sport timing, or incidence of improper graft placement or graft fracture. A significantly greater proportion of male patients underwent glenoid augmentation using the congruent arc modification versus traditional Latarjet (P < .001). When comparing outcomes, the traditional Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower incidence of fibrous union or nonunion (P = .047) and broken, loose, or improperly placed screws (P < .001), and the congruent arc modification demonstrated improved outcomes with regard to overall return to sport (P < .001), return to sport at the same level (P < .001), incidence of subluxation (P = .003) or positive apprehension (P = .002), and revision surgery for recurrent instability (P = .027).

Conclusion:

Outcomes after the congruent arc modification proved at least equivalent to the traditional Latarjet procedure in terms of recurrent instability and return to sport, although early and late complications were equivalent. The congruent arc procedure may be an acceptable alternative to traditional Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are needed.

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.

Traditional versus congruent-arc Latarjet anatomic and biomechanical perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcomes of the Latarjet Procedure Versus Free Bone Block Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Free bone block (FBB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability have been proposed as an alternative to or bail-out for the Latarjet procedure. However, studies comparing the outcomes of these treatment modalities are limited.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior shoulder stabilization with a Latarjet or FBB procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to 2019 for human-participants studies published in the English language. The search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement including studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients undergoing Latarjet or FBB procedures for anterior shoulder instability with minimum 2-year follow-up. Case reports and technique articles were excluded. Data were synthesized, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the proportions of recurrent instability, other complications, progression of osteoarthritis, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) improvement.

RESULTS

A total of 2007 studies were screened; of these, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported outcomes on a total of 4540 shoulders, of which 3917 were treated with a Latarjet procedure and 623 were treated with an FBB stabilization procedure. Weighted mean follow-up was 75.8 months (range, 24-420 months) for the Latarjet group and 92.3 months (range, 24-444 months) for the FBB group. No significant differences were found between the Latarjet and the FBB groups in the overall random pooled summary estimate of the rate of recurrent instability (5% vs 3%, respectively; P = .09), other complications (4% vs 5%, respectively; P = .892), progression of osteoarthritis (12% vs 4%, respectively; P = .077), and return to sports (73% vs 88%; respectively, P = .066). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved after both Latarjet and FBB, with a significantly greater increase after FBB procedures (10.44 for Latarjet vs 32.86 for FBB; P = .006). Other recorded PRO scores improved in all studies, with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the safety and efficacy of both the Latarjet and FBB procedures for anterior shoulder stabilization in the presence of glenoid bone loss. We found no significant differences between the procedures in rates of recurrent instability, other complications, osteoarthritis progression, and return to sports. Significant improvement in PROs was demonstrated for both groups. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies on outcomes of the Latarjet and FBB procedures, warranting future high-quality, comparative studies.

Latarjet procedure enables 73% to return to play within 8 months depending on preoperative SIRSI and Rowe scores

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews report return to play (RTP) within 5.8 months (range, 3-8) following the Latarjet procedure, but the factors that influence RTP remain unknown. The present study aimed to report the rate and time of return to play (RTP) during the first 8 months following the Latarjet procedure, and to determine the influence of sport type or patient characteristics.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively collected the records of patients that underwent Latarjet procedures for anterior shoulder instability between 2015 and 2017. Patients were excluded if they had any concomitant rotator cuff tendon lesions, or previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery. The authors retrieved patient demographics, time from injury to surgery, type of sport practiced (overhead/non-overhead, contact/non-contact), as well as pre- and postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index (WOSI), Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport After Injury index (SIRSI), and Rowe score.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients (217 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, comprising 184 males and 33 females, aged 26.8 ± 7.3 years at index surgery. The main sport practiced prior to surgery involved overhead (n = 173, 80%) and/or contact (n = 152, 70%) activities. By 8 month follow-up, 158 patients (73%) resumed their main sport, at a mean of 5.1 ± 1.5 months. Multivariable analysis revealed that RTP was more likely in patients with higher preoperative Rowe score (OR, 1.02; p = 0.024) and SIRSI score (OR, 1.02; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

By 8 months following the Latarjet procedure, 73% of patients had resumed their main sport. The likelihood of RTP was significantly associated with preoperative Rowe and SIRSI scores, but not with sport type.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Latarjet as a primary and revision procedure for anterior shoulder instability - A comparative study of survivorship, complications and functional outcomes in the medium to long-term

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study aims to compare the outcome of the Latarjet procedure when used as a primary or revision procedure for recurrent anterior gleno-humeral instability.

METHODS

One hundred and ninety-seven patients underwent 205 open Latarjet procedures during the period 2006-2015 (mean follow-up 5.6 years). Sixty shoulders had failure of a previous stabilisation requiring revision to the Latarjet procedure. Outcomes were measured using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and multiple linear regression modelling was utilised to identify predictors of functional outcome (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Two shoulders had recurrent dislocations in the cohort of 205 (1.0%). Six shoulders underwent further surgery for non-instability complications (2.9%). There were no significant differences in the clinical or functional outcome between patients undergoing a primary Latarjet procedure and those who required revision of a failed soft-tissue stabilisation. Ninety-two per cent of patients were satisfied with their shoulder following surgery. Patient-reported instability and satisfaction was significantly associated with poorer functional scores.

DISCUSSION

The Latarjet procedure successfully prevents recurrent anterior instability and is associated with high levels of satisfaction. Patient-reported outcome measures suggest no difference between primary and revision procedures.

Return to Sport After Coracoid Bone Block Transfer for Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Shoulder dislocations can be devastating for an athlete. Coracoid bone block transfer is often used for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the rate and mean time of return to sport in athletes after a coracoid bone block transfer at the pre-operative level of competition, a lower level, or a different level. We also sought to determine how return to sport rates after a coracoid bone block procedure compared with rates after several comparator interventions. Finally, we looked to determine the post-operative clinical outcomes and complications reported after a coracoid bone block procedure.

METHODS

We systematically searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE) for studies reporting return to sport after a coracoid bone block procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies (with levels of evidence ranging from II to IV) evaluating 2953 shoulders in 2888 patients were included in this systematic review. The mean rate of return to sport at any level was 88.4% (2291 of 2592 patients). However, the rate of return to the pre-operative level was 70.3% (1387 of 1974 patients). The mean time to return to sport was 5.38 months (range 21 days to 36 months). The rate of return to sport was higher after the Latarjet procedure, as compared with Bankart repair (87.0% and 75.8%, respectively). All studies showed improvements in clinical outcome measures after coracoid bone block intervention. The cumulative complication rate was found to be 6.46% (158 of 2446 patients).

CONCLUSION

Coracoid bone block transfer allows for a high rate of return to sport, although the rate of return to sport at athletes' pre-operative level is lower. The rate of return to sport after Latarjet procedure is higher in comparison with Bankart repair. Additionally, coracoid bone block transfer is associated with improvements in a number of clinical outcome measures. Common post-operative complications include non-union between bone block and glenoid, hematoma, and infection.

Similar Results in Return to Sports, Recurrences, and Healing Rates Between the Classic and Congruent-Arc Latarjet for Athletes With Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability and a Failed Stabilization

PURPOSE

To compare the return-to-sport rate, functional outcomes, and complications of the "classic Latarjet" surgery with those of the "congruent arc Latarjet" surgery in athletes with recurrent glenohumeral instability and failed previous stabilization procedures.

METHODS

All the included patients were operated between May 2009 and April 2017. The inclusion criteria were athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability, a glenoid bone defect greater than 20%, at least 1 previous failed stabilization surgery operated with the classic or the congruent-arc Latarjet procedures, and a minimum 2 years of follow-up. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, a visual analog scale for pain, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System score were used to assess functional outcomes. Complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 135 athletes were included in the study (55 patients were operated with the classic technique and 80 with the congruent arc technique). The mean follow-up was 40.3 months (range, 24-88 months) and the mean age was 26.5 years (range, 18-45 years). Overall, 87% were able to return to sports and 92% returned at the same level. No significant difference regarding return to sports was found between the groups. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe, visual analog scale, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .001). No significant difference in shoulder ROM and functional scores was found between patients operated with the classic and congruent arc procedures. There were 6 recurrences (4%). There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between groups. The bone block healed in 92% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and a failed previous operative repair, the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes and most athletes returned to sport at their preinjury level with a very low rate of recurrences, regardless of whether the Latarjet was performed with the classic or with the congruent arc technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

Editorial Commentary: Classic and Congruent-Arc Latarjet Techniques Are Equally Safe and Effective Procedures, so Choose Whichever Technique Works Best in Your Hands for Your Patients

The classic and congruent-arc Latarjet techniques are equally safe and effective in restoring glenohumeral stability, even when performed as a revision of a failed stabilization. The classic technique provides a broader contact area for healing and facilitates and improves screw fixation. The congruent-arc technique theoretically optimizes glenohumeral contact forces because of the matched radius of curvature, provides better restoration of glenoid depth, and restores larger glenoid defects. However, rotating the coracoid graft for the congruent-arc technique eliminates the possibility of imbricating the coracoacromial ligament stump to the capsule. Surgeons have little reason to change from one technique to the other; both techniques result in successful outcomes.

Are the Classic and the Congruent Arc Latarjet Procedures Equally Effective for the Treatment of Recurrent Shoulder Instability in Athletes?

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the classic and the congruent arc Latarjet procedures in athletes.

PURPOSE

To compare return to sports, functional outcomes, and complications between the classic and the congruent arc Latarjet procedures in athletes with recurrent glenohumeral instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Between June 2009 and June 2017, 145 athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability underwent surgery with the Latarjet as a primary procedure in our institution. The classic procedure was used in 66 patients, and the congruent arc method was used in 79 patients. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain in sports activity, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences were also evaluated. The postoperative bone block position and consolidation were assessed with computed tomography.

RESULTS

In the total population, the mean follow-up was 41.3 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 25.3 years (range, 18-45 years). In total, 90% of patients were able to return to sports; of these, 91% returned at their preinjury level of play. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe, VAS, and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .001). The Rowe score increased from a preoperative mean of 42.8 points to a postoperative mean of 95.2 points (P < .01). Subjective pain during sports improved from 3.2 points preoperatively to 0.7 points at last follow-up (P < .01). The ASOSS score improved significantly from a preoperative mean of 46.4 points to a postoperative mean of 88.4 points (P < .01). No significant differences in shoulder ROM and functional scores were found between patients who received the classic vs congruent arc procedures. There were 5 recurrences (3.5%): 3 dislocations (2%) and 2 subluxations (1%). No significant difference in the recurrence rate was noted between groups. The bone block healed in 134 cases (92%).

CONCLUSION

In athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability, the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes. Most athletes returned to sports at their preinjury level, and the rate of recurrence was very low, regardless of whether the patients received surgery with the classic or congruent arc technique.

Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence that the Latarjet procedure has a worse outcome as a revision operation, after a failed stabilization surgery, compared with when it is the primary procedure for posttraumatic anteroinferior instability of the shoulder joint.

PURPOSE

To compare the results from Latarjet as a primary operation vs. revision surgery after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair for posttraumatic anteroinferior shoulder instability. In addition, to assess the effect of preoperative bony pathology on outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety-nine patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure (47 primary, 52 revision after failed Bankart repair) were analyzed after an average of 3.8 (SD 2.3, range 1-11) years of follow-up. All patients underwent either computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively. Glenoid and humeral bone defects were measured to assess whether the Hill-Sachs lesion was on- or off-track. Clinical outcome measures included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), subjective shoulder value (SSV), and recurrence of instability (dislocation, subluxation, or any perception of instability).

RESULTS

There were no cases of recurrent dislocation in either group. Four patients in the primary surgery group and 13 in the revision group had at least one subluxation or perception of instability after the Latarjet procedure. Patients with a previous arthroscopic Bankart repair had worse outcomes than those undergoing primary Latarjet when assessed by the WOSI: 76 (SD 22) vs. 85 (SD 15), difference in means -9 (95% CI -17 to -1, p=0.02); SSV: 80 (SD 18) vs. 88 (SD 13), difference in means -8 (95% CI -15 to -2, p=0.01); and the recurrence percentage (25% vs. 9%, p=0.03). A multivariate linear regression model adjusted for the length of follow-up, glenoid bone defect size, Hill-Sachs lesion size, and the frequency of preoperative bipolar bone defects (on/off track Hill-Sachs lesions) further increased the difference in WOSI to -12 (95% CI -21 to -4, p=0.005).

DISCUSSION

A previous failed arthroscopic Bankart repair was a significant independent risk factor for inferior outcome. Preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from the revision vs. primary Latarjet procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, cohort observational study.