Unrecognized bony Bankart lesion accompanying a dislocated four-part proximal humerus fracture before surgery: a case report

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.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty vs. hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and effectiveness of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. The Embase, Pubmed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Cochrane Library and Chinese Biomedical databases were searched between January 2009 and January 2022 to identify relevant studies. According to the search strategy, a total of 210 associated studies were retrieved and 16 were finally included. Review Manager 5.4 software was used for the data analysis. This study indicated that patients in the RSA group had significantly improved treatment outcomes compared with patients in the HA group, as assessed by Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (95% CI, 1.69-3.76; P<0.001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (95% CI, 11.81-24.88; P<0.001) and shoulder range of motion (ROM; 95% CI, 3.41-9.07; P<0.001). However, the HA group was superior to the RSA group in terms of the Oxford Shoulder score (95% CI, 2.89-11.11; P<0.001). There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and complications. Overall, for the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures in the elderly, the RSA group had improved postoperative ROM and functional scores compared with the HA group, without significant difference in the incidence of complications. However, HA remains a safe and reliable treatment option.