Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

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.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Is Not Recommended: The Sad Country Song We Just Can't Quit

The approach to revision after an arthroscopic Bankart is a controversial topic. Several studies have shown an increased failure after revision compared with primary procedures, and many papers have recommended an open approach with or without bone augmentation. It seems intuitive that if an approach fails, that we ought to try a different one. And yet we do not. When facing this condition, it is far more common that we talk ourselves into performing another arthroscopic Bankart. It's relatively easy, familiar, and comforting. We find a reason to give this operation one more chance due to some patient-specific factor, like bone loss, number of anchors, or contact athlete status. Recent research shows that none of these factors matter, yet many of us find something that leads us to conclude that in our hands, with this patient, this time, the surgery will work. As data continue to emerge, the indications for this approach continue to narrow. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find a reason to go back to this operation as our best choice for the failed arthroscopic Bankart.

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Revision Bankart Repair: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To provide an update of recent literature with a specialized focus on clinical outcomes following arthroscopic revision Bankart repair (ARBR) by performing a systematic review of all available literature published between 2013 and 2020.

METHODS

A literature search reporting clinical outcomes after ARBR was performed. Criteria for inclusion consisted of original studies; Level of Evidence of I-IV; studies focusing on clinical outcomes after ARBR published between January 1, 2013, and January 4, 2021; studies reporting recurrent dislocation or instability rate after ARBR; reoperation/revision following ARBR, return to sport rates following ARBR; and patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest were failure defined as recurrent instability or dislocation, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcomes at follow-up.

RESULTS

A large proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Bankart repair were male, ranging between 67.7% and 93.8%. Failure rate and return to sports rate ranged between 6.1% and 46.8% and 25.9% and 88.3%, respectively, when patients with significant or greater than 20% glenoid bone loss was excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, which included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale, saw significant improvement over mean follow-up of ranging 21.64 to 60 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the failure rate and RTS rates after ARBR had a wide range, given the heterogeneity of the studies included, which varied in patient selection criteria pertaining to patients with greater than 20% glenoid bone. Although there have been advancements in arthroscopic techniques and a trend favoring arthroscopic stabilization procedures, there is a lack of consensus in recent literature for careful patient selection criteria that would minimize failure rates and maximize RTS rates after ARBR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, a systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

[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.

Inconsistencies in Controlling for Risk Factors for Recurrent Shoulder Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failure rates after arthroscopic shoulder stabilization are highly variable in the current orthopaedic literature. Predictive factors for risk of failure have been studied to improve patient selection, refine surgical techniques, and define the role of bony procedures. However, significant heterogeneity in the analysis and controlling of risk factors makes evidence-based management decisions challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this systematic review were (1) to critically assess the consistency of reported risk factors for recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, (2) to identify the existing studies with the most comprehensive inclusion of confounding factors in their analyses, and (3) to give recommendations for which factors should be reported consistently in future clinical studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. An initial search yielded 1754 titles, from which 56 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. A total of 29 full-text articles met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding recurrent anterior shoulder instability; (2) surgical procedures performed including arthroscopic anterior labral repair; (3) reported clinical outcome data including failure rate; and (4) assessment of risk factors for surgical failure. Further subanalyses were performed for 15 studies that included a multivariate analysis, 17 studies that included glenoid bone loss, and 8 studies that analyzed the Instability Severity Index Score.

RESULTS

After full-text review, 12 of the most commonly studied risk factors were identified and included in this review. The risk factors that were most consistently significant in multivariate analyses were off-track lesions (100%), glenoid bone loss (78%), Instability Severity Index Score (75%), level of sports participation (67%), number of anchors (67%), and younger age (63%). In studies of bone loss, statistical significance was more likely to be found using advanced imaging, with critical bone loss thresholds of 10% to 15%. Several studies found predictive thresholds of 2 to 4 for Instability Severity Index Score by receiver operating characteristic or multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Studies reporting risk factors for failure of arthroscopic Bankart repair often fail to control for known confounding variables. The factors with the most common statistical significance among 15 multivariate analyses are off-track lesions, glenoid bone loss, Instability Severity Index Score, level of sports participation, number of anchors, and younger age. Studies found significance more commonly with advanced imaging measurements or arthroscopic assessment of glenoid bone loss and with lower thresholds for the Instability Severity Index Score (2-4). Future studies should attempt to control for all relevant factors, use advanced imaging for glenoid bone loss measurements, and consider a lower predictive threshold for the Instability Severity Index Score.

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

PURPOSE

To evaluate the learning curve of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure in a consecutive series of 103 shoulders in 102 patients by comparing the early clinical and radiologic outcomes and complications of the first 25 patients with the latter 25 patients. Our hypothesis was that the studied parameters would be enhanced over time.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 103 shoulders in 102 patients treated with arthroscopic Latarjet procedure was prospectively registered from December 2014 until November 2019. Patients in this cohort represent the first cases of arthroscopic Latarjet for the 2 shoulder surgeons. All patients had a double screw fixation technique. The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) score preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up and 3-dimensional computed tomography scans preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up were prospectively registered. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, complications, and reoperations were all recorded. In total, 85 of 103 shoulders (83%) had complete data sets. Patient demographics, WOSI scores, operating time, complications, satisfaction rate, and radiology scores in the first and last 25 patients were compared to evaluate learning curve.

RESULTS

There was longer operating time in the early group compared with the latter (130 vs 105 minutes, P = .001) and number of complications was reduced with experience (16 vs 4, P = .0005). Serious complications requiring a reoperation were 4 (16%) in the early group compared to 1 (4%) in the latter group (P = .157). Clinical results were good with major improvement in WOSI scores and 84 % satisfaction rates in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic Latarjet was associated with a learning curve where the early group had longer operating time and greater rates of complications. This is a procedure with few serious complications, acceptable surgery time and learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative observation trial.

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability After a Failed Arthroscopic Soft-Tissue Repair Yields Comparable Failure Rates to Primary Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The management of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair remains challenging. Of the various treatment options, arthroscopic revision repairs are of increasing interest due to improved visualization of pathology and advancements in arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation.

PURPOSE

We sought to assess the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing revision arthroscopic Bankart repair after a failed index arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies identified by a search of Medline, Embase, and PubMed. Our search range was from data inception to April 29, 2020. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified, comprising 279 patients (281 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.1 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 55.7 ± 24.3 months. Patients had improvements in postoperative outcomes (eg, pain and function). The overall complication rate was 29.5%, the most common being recurrent instability (19.9%).

CONCLUSION

With significant improvements postoperatively and comparable recurrent instability rates, there exists a potential role in the use of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair where the glenoid bone loss is less than 20%. Clinicians should consider patient history and imaging findings to determine whether a more rigorous stabilization procedure is warranted. Large prospective cohorts with long-term follow-up and improved documentation are required to determine more accurate failure rates.