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

Inlay Dynamic Anterior Stabilization With the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon and Remplissage Procedure for Patients With Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss and On-Track Hill-Sachs Lesion

Augmented Bankart with dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) using the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) aims to address anteroinferior glenohumeral instability but does not specifically target Hill-Sachs lesions. The remplissage technique, "filling" the Hill-Sachs lesion, is popular for off-track lesions. The proposed combined approach seeks to stabilize the humeral head without sacrificing the coracoid, making it suitable for high-risk patients prone to recurrent shoulder instability, such as patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss. The operative technique includes patient preparation, creation of arthroscopic portals, confirmation of glenoid bone loss and other injuries, LHBT preparation and tenodesis to the anterior glenoid, and completion of the remplissage procedure. Postoperative protocols involve wearing a sling, self-mobilization, and gradual return to sports. The method aims to improve stability and outcomes in patients with complex shoulder instability issues. The DAS and remplissage is a rational choice for high-demand patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill-Sachs lesions because it may provide better stability than isolated Bankart repair or Bankart plus remplissage procedures.

"Bankart Repair and Beyond. Anticipating difficulties and managing complications. Current concepts"

Anterior shoulder instability is a frequent complaint among young athletes. The Arthroscopic Bankart Repair (ABR) is a highly successful technique for restoring the native anatomy after a capsular and labrum avulsion lesion from the glenoid. The procedure has a low complication rate, and a large proportion of patients return to sports at the same pre-injury level. As a reliable surgical technique, ABR is rarely associated with intraoperative complications, but surgical details are critical to avoid struggling during the procedure. Postoperative complications, such as neurovascular injuries, infections, and stiffness, are significant concerns. In the long term, ABR's most common complications are the recurrence of instability and shoulder arthritis after the procedure. This article focuses on 1) the complications of ABR and the critical measures to prevent them, 2) additional techniques that can enhance primary ABR outcomes or address recurrences and failures, and 3) best practices to prevent shoulder arthritis after ABR.

No Difference in External Rotation Loss After Isolated Bankart Repair, Remplissage, or Latarjet: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the effectiveness of remplissage in reducing instability recurrence, debate remains about the loss of external rotation (ER) after this procedure.

PURPOSE

To compare the loss of ER after primary isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair alone (BR), Bankart with remplissage (REMP), and Latarjet (LAT) procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A literature search of 4 databases was conducted to identify comparative studies reporting ER after BR, REMP, or LAT. ER loss with the arm at side was collected, along with postoperative Rowe score, return to previous sport level, instability recurrence, reintervention, and noninstability complications. Dichotomous variables were assessed using odds ratios with 95% CIs, and continuous variables were analyzed using mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. A random-effects meta-analysis was used for continuous outcomes and dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included, consisting of 2100 patients: 824 in BR, 378 in REMP, and 898 in LAT groups. The mean ER loss was 6.8°± 11° after BR, 9.3°± 12.6° after REMP, and 0.8°± 20.4° after LAT. Comparing REMP and BR, the MD was 5.9° (P = .13); between REMP and LAT, the MD was 9.6° (P = .17). For Rowe scores, the MD was 3.46 (P = .49) between REMP and BR and 0.24 (P = .9) between REMP and LAT. Odds ratios for return to previous sport level were 1.08 (P = .84) for REMP versus BR and 1.62 (P = .09) for REMP versus LAT. Regarding instability recurrence, the odds ratio was 6.67 (P = .04) for REMP versus BR and 1.43 (P = .48) for REMP versus LAT. The odds ratio for reoperation for BR was 7.69 (P = .05) compared with REMP, and the odds ratio for complications for LAT was 6.25 (P = .02) compared with REMP.

CONCLUSION

Remplissage reduces instability recurrence compared with isolated Bankart repair without any statistically significant difference in postoperative ER deficit. Remplissage may reduce the risk of reoperation compared with Latarjet with no difference in postoperative ER deficit or recurrence.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair vs. Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder instability: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complication rates in general and athletic populations

BACKGROUND

The Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure are both effective surgical methods for treating repeated recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder. However, there is still little consensus regarding the standard treatment for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Typically, the choice of treatment has been influenced more by training and tradition rather than the existing evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes, recurrence, and complications between the 2 procedures, among both athletic and nonathletic cohorts.

METHODS

Relevant clinical trials were identified through a systematic search of databases in April 2023 including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were included if they compared patient-reported outcomes or complication rates of open Latarjet procedure vs. arthroscopic Bankart repair. Continuous data, such as patient-reported outcomes were pooled as the weighted mean difference. For dichotomous data such as recurrence and revision rates, the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinical studies (3 randomized controlled trials) were included in the meta-analysis involving a total of 13,176 operated shoulders. Arthroscopic Bankart showed a 3.08 times higher risk of recurrence and revision due to postoperative instability (RR = 3.08, 95% CI 2.03-4.68) compared with those who had the Latarjet approach. The Rowe score was higher in the Latarjet group by an average of 4.55 points (95% CI 2.41-6.68). This difference was more pronounced in athletes, with an increase of 5.47 points (95% CI 0.16-10.78), compared with the nonathletic population: 4.03 (95% CI 2.04-6.02). Return to sport time was shorter by 0.40 months (95% CI -0.75 to -0.05) in the Latarjet group. The total complication rate was approximately 47% lower in the Bankart group (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90). Additionally, the risk of hematoma was 75% lower in patients undergoing the arthroscopic Bankart compared with the Latarjet procedure. External rotation, assessed both in abduction and adduction of the arm, as well as forward elevation, show no significant differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that the Latarjet procedure has a lower recurrence rate, excels in patient-reported outcomes, and requires less time for return to sports. Thus, it may be a superior alternative to arthroscopic Bankart repair. However, it is still associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage yields similar outcomes to open Latarjet for primary and revision stabilization in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL), defined in this study as 20% GBL or less, remains controversial. This study aimed to compare arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (ABR + R) to open Latarjet for subcritical GBL in primary or revision procedures. We hypothesized that ABR + R would yield higher rates of recurrent instability and reoperation compared to Latarjet in both primary and revision settings.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing either arthroscopic ABR + R or an open Latarjet procedure. Patients with connective tissue disorders, critical GBL (>20%), <2 year follow-up, or insufficient data were excluded. Recurrent instability and revision were the primary outcomes of interest. Additional outcomes of interest included subjective shoulder value, strength, and range of motion (ROM) RESULTS: One hundred eight patients (70 ABR + R, 38 Latarjet) were included with an average follow-up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. In the primary and revision settings, similar rates of recurrent instability (Primary: P = .60; Revision: P = .28) and reoperation (Primary: P = .06; Revision: P = 1.00) were observed between Latarjet and ABR + R. Primary ABR + R exhibited better subjective shoulder value, active ROM, and internal rotation strength compared to primary open Latarjet. However, no differences were observed in the revision setting.

CONCLUSION

Similar rates of recurrent instability and reoperation in addition to comparable outcomes with no differences in ROM were found for ABR + R and Latarjet in patients with subcritical GBL in both the primary and revision settings. ABR + R can be a safe and effective procedure in appropriately selected patients with less than 20% GBL for both primary and revision stabilization.

Latarjet procedure restores range of motion at 6 months postoperatively: a prospective cohort study using motion capture analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a common concern that range of motion (ROM) is negatively affected by the Latarjet procedure. We hypothesize that the Latarjet procedure results in full recovery of ROM postoperatively and significantly improved patient-reported outcome measures.

METHODS

Patient data were prospectively collected from a randomized controlled trial to analyze outcomes after open Latarjet procedure. Inclusion criteria involved a minimum follow-up of 6 months and unilateral shoulder instability. Study outcome was assessed by postoperative ROM at 6 months postoperatively and compared to the preoperative ROM of the ipsilateral shoulder as well as the ROM of the unaffected contralateral shoulder. All ROM measurements were performed using a motion capture system to ensure consistent and reliable measurements.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 84 patients. ROM was measured in external rotation with the shoulder adducted (ER1), external rotation with the shoulder abducted 90° (ER2), internal rotation with the arm abducted 90° (IR2), and active forward elevation (AE). The mean difference in ROM between the operated arm vs. the contralateral healthy arm at 6 months postoperatively was 3.4° in ER1 (P = .19), 4.2° in ER2 (P = .086), 2.2° in IR2 (P = .36), and 2.4° in AE (P = .045). Subanalysis of patients with and without sling use revealed no significant difference in ROM between the operated shoulder and the contralateral shoulder at 6 months in either group, with the exception of ER2 in the sling group. In this latter group, ROM was 71° in the operated arm and 79° in the contralateral arm (P = .0094). Mean preoperative pain score was 25.7 (95% CI 21.4-30.1) vs. 13.0 postoperatively at 6 months (95% CI 9.50-16.5) (P < .00001). Mean preoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation instability was 42.9 (95% CI 38.4-47.3) vs. 86.2 postoperatively at 6 months (95% CI 83.6-88.7) (P < .00001). Mean preoperative Rowe score was 38.5 (95% CI 34.3-42.7) vs. 84.3 at postoperative month 6 (95% CI 81.1-87.4) (P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet procedure performed for anterior instability using a capsular repair results in complete ROM recovery in ER1, ER2, and IR2 at 6 months postoperatively, with only a slight discrepancy in active elevation. Sling use after the Latarjet procedure results in no benefit over postoperative recovery without the use of a sling. Sling use negatively affects the ROM in ER2, taking as reference the contralateral arm of the same patient, when compared to patients who did not use a sling postoperatively.

Open Latarjet reduces residual apprehension, redislocation and possibility of dislocation arthropathy compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair despite greater bipolar bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability

Background

Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and the open Latarjet (OL) procedure are the most frequently preferred methods in the treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability. The aim of this study was to compare patients who underwent ABR or OL due to anterior glenohumeral instability in terms of functional capacity, glenohumeral bone loss, residual apprehension, redislocation, and dislocation arthropathy.

Methods

A total of 56 patients who underwent ABR or OL due to anterior glenohumeral instability between January 2018 and December 2021 were evaluated retrospectively. There were 32 patients in the ABR group and 24 patients in the OL group. Patients' demographic characteristics, number of preoperative dislocations, and return-to-work, and follow-up periods were recorded. Glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs interval, and Hill-Sachs depth were measured from preoperative computed tomography sections. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Rowe score, and joint range of motion were calculated. Patients were also asked about residual apprehension, postoperative redislocations, dislocation arthropathy, and surgery satisfaction.

Results

The mean age of the ABR group was 22.5 ± 3.9 years (28 men, 4 women), while that of the OL group was 25.0 ± 4.8 years (22 men, 2 women). The mean number of dislocations was 2.7 ± 1.3 in the ABR and 10.9 ± 5.5 in the OL (P = .001). Higher values of glenoid bone loss (%) (ABR: 6 ± 2; OL: 20 ± 4), Hill-Sachs interval (mm) (ABR: 8 ± 3; OL: 21 ± 3), and Hill-Sachs depth (mm) (ABR: 5 ± 2; OL: 8 ± 2) were measured in the OL (P = .001 for all), reflecting significantly more bone loss. Residual apprehension was detected in 10 patients in the ABR and 2 patients in the OL (P = .007). While 4 patients in the ABR had a history of redislocation, no redislocation occurred in the OL (P = .012). Dislocation arthropathy development was observed in 9 patients in the ABR and 4 patients in the OL (P = .038), according to the modified Samilson and Prieto classification. External rotation in adduction and external rotation in 90° abduction were approximately 5° higher in the OL (P = .011 and P = .016, respectively).

Conclusion

The ABR and OL methods both provide satisfactory outcomes in the treatment of anterior glenohumeral instability with appropriate indications. The OL procedure is preferred for patients with more dislocations and greater bipolar bone loss. Despite greater bipolar bone loss, the OL procedure provides lower rates of residual apprehension, redislocation, and dislocation arthropathy. Additionally, due to the stability it provides, there is less loss in external rotation.

Management of bone loss in anterior shoulder instability

Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available.

Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin

Purpose

To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of clinical studies of the remplissage procedure.

Methods

Two reviewers independently performed a literature search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases using the search term "remplissage" in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The full article of each included SR was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Methodologic quality was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2).

Results

A total of 15 SRs (8 accompanied by meta-analyses; 6 Level III and 9 Level IV) were included. Overall, 13 SRs (86.7%) contained at least 1 form of spin, with 33 unique instances of spin recorded; the mean frequency was 2.2 ± 1.3 (range, 0-4). The most prevalent form of spin, present in 11 studies (73%), was type 9 ("conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias"). There were 14 uses of spin classified as misleading reporting, 16 classified as misleading interpretation, and 3 classified as inappropriate extrapolation. The mean 5-year impact factor of the publishing journals was 4.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-6.1), the mean number of citations per SR was 33.3 ± 24.9 (range, 0-55), and the mean number of citations per month since publication was 0.68 ± 0.44 (range, 0-1.48). According to the AMSTAR 2 assessment, confidence in the results of the SRs was rated as critically low for 20% of reviews, low for 33.3%, and moderate for 46.7%.

Conclusions

Most SRs of the remplissage procedure are affected by the presence of spin. Favorable reporting was observed in the absence of definite findings, as was minimization of drawbacks for certain populations.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Rehabilitation Protocol Variability Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair and Remplissage for Management of Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review

Background

Augmentation of an arthroscopic Bankart repair with the remplissage (ABR) procedure has shown to confer a decrease in recurrence rates, yet, at the expense of potentially compromising shoulder motion.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose was to examine clinical studies that described a post-operative rehabilitation protocol after an arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage procedure. It was hypothesized that a review of the literature would find variability among the studies and that, among comparative studies, there would be a limited distinction from protocols for isolated Bankart repairs.

Study design

Systematic Review.

Materials and Methods

A search was conducted using three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL) according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following terms were combined while utilizing Boolean operators: (Bankart lesion OR labral tear) AND (remplissage). Studies evaluating patients after arthroscopic stabilization for unidirectional anterior glenohumeral instability with the addition of the remplissage procedure and at least 1 year follow-up were included for analysis.

Results

A total of 41 studies (14 Level IV, 24 Level III, 2 Level II, and 1 Level I) were included with a total of 1,307 patients who underwent ABR. All patients had <30% glenoid bone loss and a range of 10-50% humeral head size Hill-Sachs lesion. Type and position of immobilization were the most reported outcomes (41/41) followed by time of immobilization (40/41). Moreover, 23/41 studies described their initial post-operative shoulder range of motion restrictions, while 17/41 specified any shoulder motion allowed during this restrictive phase. Time to return to sport was also described in 37/41 of the retrieved studies. Finally, only two of the 27 comparative studies tailored their rehabilitation protocol according to the specific procedure performed, underscoring the lack of an individualized approach (i.e. same rehabilitation protocol for different procedures).

Conclusion

The results of the present systematic review expose the variability among rehabilitation protocols following ABR. This variability prompts consideration of the underlying factors influencing these disparities and underscores the need for future research to elucidate optimal rehabilitation. Based on the results of this systematic review and the senior authors´ clinical experience, a rehabilitation approach similar to an isolated Bankart repair appears warranted, with additional precautions being utilized regarding internal rotation range of motion and external rotation strengthening.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.

Understanding the Remplissage: History, Biomechanics, Outcomes, and Current Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arthroscopic remplissage has continued to gain popularity as an adjunct to Bankart repair for patients with anterior shoulder instability. Although the original remplissage technique was described over 15 years ago, our understanding of when and how to use this procedure continues to evolve. This article provides a review of how remplissage affects shoulder biomechanics, compares clinical outcomes between remplissage and other procedures for shoulder instability, and discusses current indications for remplissage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research focuses on the use of remplissage across a wide range of glenoid bone loss. Remplissage appears effective at preventing recurrent instability in patients with glenoid bone loss up to 15% of the glenoid width. However, once glenoid bone exceeds 15%, outcomes tend to favor bony reconstruction procedures such as Latarjet. Results of biomechanical studies examining shoulder range of motion (ROM) after remplissage are mixed, though clinical studies tend to report no significant limitations in ROM when remplissage is added to a Bankart repair. Adding a remplissage to conventional Bankart repair may improve clinical outcomes and lower rates of recurrent instability without significantly altering shoulder ROM. However, surgeons should recognize its limitations in treating patients with large amounts of glenoid bone loss and should be prepared to discuss alternative procedures on a case-by-case basis. Absolute indications and contraindications for remplissage are not well defined currently and require further scientific research.

Biomechanical Analysis Reveals Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss Is Best Treated With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization for On-Track Lesions and With Remplissage for Off-Track Lesions

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical effects of augmenting Bankart repair (BR) with either remplissage or dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with on-track or off-track bipolar bone loss.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested at 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the intact, injury, and repair conditions. Injury conditions included 15% glenoid bone loss with an on-track or off-track Hill-Sachs lesion as previously recommended. Repair conditions included isolated BR, BR with remplissage, and BR with DAS (long head of biceps transfer). The glenohumeral stability was assessed by measuring the anterior translation under 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 N load and maximum load without causing instability at mid-range (60°) and end-range (90°) external rotation (ER). Maximum range of motion (ROM) was measured by applying a 2.2-N·m torque in passive ER and internal rotation.

RESULTS

Isolated BR failed to restore native glenohumeral stability in both on-track and off-track bipolar bone loss models. Both remplissage and DAS significantly decreased the anterior instability in the bipolar bone loss models, showing better restoration than the isolated BR. In the on-track lesions, DAS successfully restored native glenohumeral stability and mobility, whereas remplissage significantly decreased anterior translation without load (-2.12 ± 1.07 mm at 90° ER, P = .003; -1.98 ± 1.23 mm at 60° ER, P = .015). In the off-track lesions, remplissage restored native glenohumeral stability but led to significant ROM limitation (-8.6° ± 2.3° for internal rotation, P < .001; -13.9° ± 6.2° for ER, P = .003), whereas DAS failed to restore native stability at 90° ER regarding the increased anterior translation under 50 N (4.10 ± 1.53 mm, P < .001) and decreased maximum load (-13.8 ± 9.2 N, P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

At time-zero, both remplissage and DAS significantly reduced residual anterior instability compared with isolated BR in the bipolar bone loss models and restored the native glenohumeral stability under most translational loads. However, remplissage could decrease the anterior translation without load for on-track lesions and may restrict ROM for off-track lesions, whereas DAS failed to restore native stability under high translational loads for off-track lesions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

DAS could be recommended to treat on-track bipolar bone loss with less biomechanical adverse effects, whereas remplissage might be the preferred procedure to address off-track bipolar bone loss for better stability.

Arthroscopic remplissage: history, indications, and clinical outcomes

Several surgical procedures have been proposed to address anterior glenohumeral instability, which is one of the most common complaints in the general population. The remplissage, first described in early 2000s, is a procedure performed simultaneously with the arthroscopic Bankart repair to correct large, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs). This procedure stabilizes the joint by tenodesing the infraspinatus tendon into the HSL to fill and disengage the defect. This procedure gained popularity because it has relatively low risk and is able to improve shoulder stability while being less invasive than other bone-blocking procedures. The remplissage has become a valuable add-on technique that can substantially improve outcomes in unstable patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. Nevertheless, several studies in the literature have raised concerns regarding its efficacy in critically unstable patients and the potential range of motion limitations that can arise postoperatively. Additional comparative studies and trials should be conducted to appropriately establish the role of remplissage in treating anterior instability, especially in patients with critical bone loss.

Chronic anterior shoulder instability with bone loss: a practical approach

The stability of the glenohumeral joint, known for its remarkable mobility, relies on several factors, including the congruency of the joint's bones and the integrity of capsulolabral structures, encompassing the labrum, the capsule, and the glenohumeral ligaments. In cases of anterior shoulder instability, bone lesions are a common occurrence, most frequently involving glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions. When both glenoid and humeral bone lesions coexist, the isolated Bankart procedure has exhibited a significant rate of failure. In such instances, the Latarjet procedure, especially when bone loss is present, retains its position as the gold standard, thanks to its consistent success in both short- and long-term outcomes. Recent advancements in research have explored alternative strategies to address bone loss, including the Remplissage procedure for humeral bone deficits and the use of bone block grafts to manage glenoid bone lesions, with a focus on achieving more anatomical techniques. However, it's crucial to recognize that, beyond bone loss, a multitude of intrinsic and extrinsic factors come into play when determining the most suitable treatment. The patient's profile, including factors like constitutional laxity and activity level, must be carefully considered in the decision-making process. The Latarjet procedure maintains its esteemed status as a benchmark in the field, thanks to its consistent excellence in both short- and long-term results. This article seeks to provide insights into the roles and placement of various surgical techniques within the context of chronic anterior shoulder instability, taking into account the intricate interplay of factors that influence treatment decisions.

Glenoid augmentation for subcritical bone loss: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Anterior shoulder instability can be debilitating for young, active individuals, and increasing magnitudes of glenoid bone loss (GBL) predisposes patients to recurrent instability and increases the likelihood of failure of soft-tissue only repairs. It is widely accepted that GBL >25% should be treated with a glenoid bone grafting procedure. However, consensus is lacking on the optimal management in the setting of subcritical GBL, typically classified as >13.5%. This article reviews the pathoanatomy relevant to anterior shoulder instability and subcritical GBL, while highlighting existing evidence regarding open augmentation procedures in comparison to other treatment options for this subpopulation.

Methods

A narrative review of the current literature was conducted focusing on subcritical GBL in anterior glenoid stabilization procedures, including review of forward citation and reference lists of selected articles.

Key Content and Findings

Computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for obtaining precise measurements of subcritical GBL, defined as <13.5%, using the best-fit circle method. There is debate surrounding the optimal surgical management of subcritical GBL. Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) remains the predominate surgery performed for primary anterior shoulder instability, while glenoid augmentation and open Bankart repair continue to be used sparingly in the United States. Historically, the Latarjet procedure was considered for substantial glenoid defects, but the illumination of subcritical GBL has expanded its indications. Arthroscopic, soft tissue-only repairs with the addition of remplissage, has been shown to have similar 2-year outcomes to the Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL, which has been limited in the study of subcritical GBL. Additionally, utilization of distal tibial allograft and local autograft is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, again, with limited prospective studies in the subcritical GBL population.

Conclusions

There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment approach to recurrent shoulder instability in the setting of subcritical GBL. Conversely, there is a growing agreement that isolated ABR is likely inadequate and subcritical GBL should prompt consideration of a more robust operation. To this end, interest in glenoid bone augmentation continues to grow as a reliable technique for recreating the native architecture and restoring glenohumeral stability are developed.

The Subscapularis-Sparing "Flipped Latarjet" Procedure

The Latarjet procedure is a proven and effective operation to treat anterior shoulder instability. Especially in cases with anterior glenoid bone loss, the Latarjet operation is the most popular procedure to restore glenoid anatomy and avoid further dislocations. Next to the re-creation of the missing glenoid bone, the sling effect of the conjoint tendon transferred between a split in the subscapularis muscle is an important "soft tissue stabilizer" of the humeral head. However, it has been shown that the inferior part of the subscapularis muscle tends to degenerate, leading to fatty infiltration of the muscle itself. Also, exposure through the subscapularis split is technically demanding, and there is a risk of nerve damage due to the pulling forces of the retractors during open surgery. When performing the procedure arthroscopically, extremely low and medial portals are necessary to find a correct angle for the glenoid drilling when approaching from anterior. Neurovascular structures may be at risk during these surgical steps. The aim of the flipped Latarjet procedure is to facilitate a safe and reliable arthroscopic operation to anteriorly stabilize the shoulder by transferring the coracoid to the deficient glenoid without splitting the subscapularis muscle while keeping the benefits of a sling effect of the conjoined tendon.

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.

Arthroscopic Latarjet yields better union and prevention of instability compared to arthroscopic bony Bankart repair in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure or arthroscopic bony Bankart repair provide better outcomes in terms of rates of recurrent instability, non-union and complications, as well as clinical scores and range of motion.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane databases, applying the following keywords: "Arthroscopic bony Bankart" OR "Arthroscopic osseous Bankart" AND "Arthroscopic Latarjet" OR "Arthroscopic coracoid bone block".

RESULTS

The systematic search returned 1465 records, of which 29 were included (arthroscopic bony Bankart repair, n = 16; arthroscopic Latarjet, n = 13). 37 datasets were included for data extraction, on 1483 shoulders. Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair had significantly higher instability rates (0.14; CI 0.10-0.18; vs 0.04; CI 0.02-0.06), significantly lower union rates (0.63; CI 0.28-0.91 vs 0.98; CI 0.93-1.00), and significantly lower pain on VAS (0.42; CI 0.17-0.67 vs 1.17; CI 0.96-1.38). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid bone loss, follow-up, complication rate, ROWE score, ASES score, external rotation, and anterior forward elevation between arthroscopic Latarjet and arthroscopic bony Bankart repair.

CONCLUSION

Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair results in significantly (i) higher rates of recurrent instability (14% vs 4%), (ii) lower union rates (63% vs 98%), but (iii) slightly lower pain on VAS (0.45 vs 1.17). There were no differences in complication rates, clinical scores, or postoperative ranges of motion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Bankart repair with remplissage vs. Latarjet procedure on recurrence, postoperative pain scores, external rotation, and Rowe score in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion. A systematic review

Background

Currently, recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion managed using the Bankart repair showed higher recurrent instability compared with the Latarjet technique. Addition of posterior capsulodesis with infraspinatus remplissage to the Bankart repair, known as Bankart with remplissage (BR), increases shoulder stability in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion. BR can potentially match the low recurrence rates of the Latarjet procedure while being less invasive. This systematic review compares the Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet procedure on postoperative pain, external rotation range of motion, and recurrent instability in anterior shoulder instability patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion.

Methods

A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Studies comparing BR and Latarjet on recurrent instability and/or visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score in anterior shoulder instability patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion were included. Expert opinion, conference presentations, editorials, abstracts, case reports, and nonclinical studies were excluded. Records were initially screened by title and abstract, during the second screening full text was consulted. Study quality was examined using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria. Risk ratios were calculated for recurrent instability, and standardized mean difference (Cohen's d) were calculated for VAS pain, external rotation, and Rowe score.

Results

Eight of the 146 studies were included in the analysis. The study population consisted of a total of 845 patients, of whom 450 patients underwent the Latarjet procedure and 395 patients underwent BR. Three studies included revision surgery patients; more revision surgery patients were allocated to the Latarjet group. Risk ratios for recurrent instability varied from 0.45 to 2.41. Effect size varied for VAS pain from -2.28 to 0.04, for external rotation from -1.44 to 1.12, and for Rowe score from -0.67 to 1.37. Limitations of the included studies were differences in baseline demographics and functional outcomes.

Conclusion

Recurrent instability seems equal between BR and Latarjet in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion depth <10 mm. Latarjet showed superior external rotation than BR. Future research should examine patient demographics optimal for minimizing recurrent instability using BR.

Anterior Shoulder Instability and Open Procedures: History, Indications, and Clinical Outcomes

The shoulder, being the most mobile joint in the human body, is often susceptible to dislocations and subluxations more so than other joints. As such, shoulder instability constitutes a common complaint among patients worldwide, especially those who are young, participate in contact sports, and have increased innate flexibility in their joints. Management options in the setting of instability vary between conservative and surgical options that aim to mitigate symptoms and allow return of function. Surgical options can be arthroscopic and open, with a general shift among surgeons towards utilizing arthroscopic surgery in the past several decades. Nevertheless, open procedures still play a role in managing shoulder instability patients, especially those with significant bone loss, recurrent instability, coexisting shoulder pathologies, and high risk of failure with arthroscopic surgery. In these clinical settings, open procedures, like the Latarjet procedure, open Bankart repair, glenoid bone augmentation using iliac crest autograft or distal tibial allograft, and salvage options like glenohumeral arthrodesis and arthroplasty may show good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates. Each of these open procedures possesses its own set of advantages and disadvantages and entails a specific set of indications based on published literature. It is important to cater treatment options to the individual patient in order to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of complications. Future research on open shoulder stabilization procedures should focus on the long-term outcomes of recently utilized procedures, investigate different graft options for procedures involving bone augmentation, and conduct additional comparative analyses in order to establish concrete surgical management guidelines.

Bone loss in shoulder instability: putting it all together

Glenohumeral bone loss is frequently observed in cases of recurrent anterior and posterior shoulder instability and represents a risk factor for failure of nonoperative treatment. Patients with suspected glenoid or humeral bone loss in the setting of recurrent instability should be evaluated with a thorough history and physical examination, as well as advanced imaging including computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). In cases of both anterior and posterior instability, the magnitude and location of bone loss should be determined, as well as the relationship between the glenoid track (GT) and any humeral defects. While the degree and pattern of osseous deficiency help guide treatment, patient-specific risk factors for recurrent instability must also be considered when determining patient management. Treatment options for subcritical anterior bone loss include labral repair and capsular plication, while more severe deficiency should prompt consideration of bony augmentation including coracoid transfer or free bone block procedures. Concomitant humeral lesions are treated according to the degree of engagement with the glenoid rim and may be addressed with soft tissue remplissage or bony augmentation procedures. While critical and subcritical thresholds of glenoid bone loss guide the management of anterior instability, such thresholds are less defined in the setting of posterior instability. Furthermore, current treatment algorithms are limited by a lack of long-term comparative studies. Future high-quality studies as well as possible modifications in indications and surgical technique are required to elucidate the optimal treatment of anterior, posterior, and bipolar glenohumeral bone loss in the setting of recurrent shoulder instability.