Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Instability Severity Index Score predicts recurrent shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

The Instability Severity Index (ISI) Score was developed to preoperatively assess the risk of recurrent shoulder instability after an arthroscopic Bankart repair. This study aims to validate the use of ISI Score for predicting the risk of recurrence after an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population and proposes an appropriate cut-off point for treating patients with an arthroscopic Bankart repair or otherwise.

METHODS

This study analysed 99 shoulders after a traumatic dislocation that underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with at least 3 years follow-up. Patients were divided into subcategories based on their respective ISI Score. Recurrence includes either a postoperative dislocation or perceived instability.

RESULTS

The overall recurrence rate was found to be 26.3%. A significant correlation was identified between ISI Score and the recurrence rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.545, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.231-1.939, p < 0.001). Furthermore, ISI Score 4-6 (OR: 4.498, 95% CI: 1.866-10.842, p < 0.001) and ISI Score > 6 (OR: 7.076, 95% CI: 2.393-20.924, p < 0.001) both had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to ISI Score 0-3. In ISI Score subcategories 0-3, 4-6 and >6, the recurrence rate was, respectively, 15.4%, 40.7% and 71.4%.

CONCLUSION

ISI Score has predictive value in determining the recurrence risk of shoulder instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in a heterogeneous population. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend using arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Clinical and shared decision-making are essential in the group with ISI Score 4-6, since the recurrence rate is significantly higher than in patients with ISI Score 0-3. Arthroscopic Bankart repair is not suitable for patients with ISI Score > 6.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

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

Functional and Sport-Specific Outcome Following Traumatic First-Time Shoulder Dislocation and Arthroscopic Surgical Repair in Rock Climbers

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic shoulder dislocations rank among the most common shoulder injuries in climbers, with rising numbers over the last years. The objective of this study was to analyze the outcome following traumatic first-time shoulder dislocation and subsequent surgical treatment in this population.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, climbers who experienced a traumatic shoulder dislocation were treated with an arthroscopic repair of the labrum-ligament complex (LLC). The functional outcome was assessed with a standardized questionnaire and clinical examination, including the Constant Murley and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores. The sport-specific outcome was analyzed using the Union Internationale des Associations d'Alpinisme (UIAA) scale of difficulty and a sport-specific outcome score.

RESULTS

The functional and sport-specific outcome for 27 climbers (20 men; 7 women; 3 with bilateral injuries; age, 34±11 [17-61] y; data presented as mean±SD [range]) was assessed 53±29 (12-103) mo after surgery. The postoperative Constant Murley score was 95±8 (67-100) points. At follow-up, 93% (n=25) of patients had started climbing again. Twenty-one climbers (78%) reached a climbing level within the range of ±0.33 UIAA grades of their initial capability or even exceeded their preinjury grade. Only 7% (n=2) of the patients had a recurrent shoulder dislocation, leading to a secondary surgery, and, therefore, required ongoing postoperative treatment at the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic repair of the LLC following first-time traumatic shoulder dislocation in climbers shows a good outcome and a low recurrence rate. After surgery, most patients are able to regain a high level of rock-climbing ability.

Open Latarjet with Metal-Free Cerclage Fixation

Despite multiple modifications, the Latarjet is still the most popular procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss. Partial or subtotal resorption of the graft is common, potentially leading to hardware prominence and risk of anterior soft-tissue impingement. To minimize the technical difficulties and morbidity associated with metallic implants, a coracoid and conjoint tendon transfer with a mini-open approach using Cerclage tape suture is described, as an alternative for the Latarjet procedure typically performed with metal screws and plates.

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Purpose

To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR).

Methods

Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon’s practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05.

Results

The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.