Low rate of recurrent instability following the open Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for failed prior stabilization surgery

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.

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.

Factors affecting a patient's experience following the open Latarjet procedure to treat recurrent anterior shoulder instability

The open Latarjet procedure is a widely used treatment for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Although satisfactory outcomes are reported, factors which influence a patient's experience are poorly quantified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a range of demographic factors and measures of the severity of instability on patient-reported outcome measures in patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure at a minimum follow-up of two years. A total of 350 patients with anterior instability of the shoulder who underwent an open Latarjet procedure between 2005 and 2018 were reviewed prospectively, with the collection of demographic and psychosocial data, preoperative CT, and complications during follow-up of two years. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), assessed preoperatively, at two years postoperatively, and at mid-term follow-up at a mean of 50.6 months (SD 24.8) postoperatively. The secondary outcome measure was the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. The influence of the demographic details of the patients, measurements of the severity of instability, and the complications of surgery were assessed in a multivariate analysis. The mean age of the patients was 25.5 years (22 to 32) and 27 (7.7%) were female. The median time to surgery after injury was 19 months (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 39). Seven patients developed clinically significant complications requiring further intervention within two years of surgery. The median percentage WOSI deficiency was 8.0% (IQR 4 to 20) and median QuickDASH was 3.0 (IQR 0 to 9) at mid-term assessment. A minority of patients reported a poorer experience, and 22 (6.3%) had a > 50% deficiency in WOSI score. Multivariate analysis revealed that consumption of ≥ 20 units of alcohol/week, a pre-existing affective disorder or epilepsy, medicolegal litigation, increasing time to surgery, and residing in a more socioeconomically deprived area were independently predictive of a poorer WOSI score. Although most patients treated by an open Latarjet procedure have excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up, a minority have poorer outcomes, which are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors, rather than measures of the severity of instability.

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.

MRI Allows Accurate Measurement of Glenoid Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

Bony Bankart lesions larger than a certain size can lead to a high redislocation rate, despite treatment with Bankart repair. Detection and measurement of glenoid bone loss play key roles in selecting the appropriate surgical therapy in patients with shoulder instability. There is controversy about which diagnostic modalities, using different measurement methods, provide the best diagnostic validity.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the diagnostic accuracies of true AP radiographs, West Point (WP) view radiographs, MRI, and CT to detect glenoid bone loss? (2) Are there differences in the measurements of glenoid bone loss on MRI and CT? (3) What are the intrarater and interrater reliabilities of CT and MRI to measure glenoid bone loss?

METHODS

Between August 2012 and February 2017, we treated 80 patients for anterior shoulder instability. Of those, we considered patients with available preoperative true AP radiographs, WP radiographs, CT images, and MR images of the affected shoulder as potentially eligible. Based on that, 63% (50 of 80) of patients were eligible for analysis; 31% (25 of 80) were excluded because not all planes or slices (such as sagittal, axial, or frontal) of each diagnostic imaging modalities were available and 7% (5 of 80) because of the insufficient quality of diagnostic images (for example, setting of the layers did not allow adequate en face view of the glenoid). Preoperative true AP radiographs, WP radiographs, CT images and MR images of the affected shoulders were retrospectively assessed for the presence of glenoid bone loss by two blinded observers at a median (range) 25 months (12 to 66) postoperatively. To evaluate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve (AUC), we compared the detection of glenoid bone loss at follow-up achieved with the aforementioned imaging modalities with intraoperative arthroscopic detection. In all patients with glenoid bone loss, two blinded observers measured the size of the glenoid bone loss on preoperative CT and MR images using six measuring techniques: depth and length of the glenoid bone loss, Bigliani classification, best-fit circle width loss method, AP distance method, surface area method, and Gerber X ratio. Subsequently, the sizes of the glenoid bone loss determined using CT and MRI were compared. To estimate intraobserver and interobserver reliability, measurements were performed in a blinded fashion by two observers. Their level of experience was equivalent to that of orthopaedic residents, and they completed a training protocol before the measurements.

RESULTS

For the ability to accurately diagnose Bankart lesions, the AUC (accuracy of a diagnostic test; the closer to 1.0, the more accurate the test) was good for MRI (0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.94]; p < 0.01), fair for CT (0.79 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.92]; p < 0.01), poor for WP radiographs (0.69 [95% CI 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.02) and failed for true AP radiographs (0.55 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.72]; p = 0.69). In paired comparisons, there were no differences between CT and MRI regarding (median [range]) lesion width (2.33 mm [0.35 to 4.53] versus 2.26 mm [0.90 to 3.47], p = 0.71) and depth (0.42 mm [0.80 to 1.39] versus 0.40 mm [0.06 to 1.17]; p = 0.54), and there were no differences concerning the other measurement methods: best-fit circle width loss method (15.02% [2.48% to 41.59%] versus 13.38% [2.00% to 36.34%]; p = 0.66), AP distances method (15.48% [1.44% to 42.01%] versus 12.88% [1.43% to 36.34%]; p = 0.63), surface area method (14.01% [0.87% to 38.25] versus 11.72% [2.45% to 37.97%]; p = 0.68), and Gerber X ratio (0.75 [0.13 to 1.47] versus 0.76 [0.27 to 1.13]; p = 0.41). Except for the moderate interrater reliability of the Bigliani classification using CT (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.599 [95% CI 0.246 to 0.834]; p = 0.03) and acceptable interrater reliability of the Gerber X ratio using CT (0.775 [95% CI 0.542 to 0.899]; p < 0.01), all other measurement methods had good or excellent intrarater and interrater reliabilities on MRI and CT.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that CT and MRI can accurately detect glenoid bone loss, whereas WP radiographs can only recognize them poorly, and true AP radiographs do not provide any adequate diagnostic accuracy. In addition, when measuring glenoid bone loss, MRI images of the analyzed measurement methods yielded sizes that were no different from CT measurements. Finally, the use of MRI images to measure Bankart bone lesions gave good-to-excellent reliability in the present study, which was not inferior to CT findings. Considering the advantages including lower radiation exposure and the ability to assess the condition of the labrum using MRI, we believe MRI can help surgeons avoid ordering additional CT imaging in clinical practice for the diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability in patients with glenoid bone loss. Future studies should investigate the reproducibility of our results with a larger number of patients, using other measurement methods that include examination of the opposite side or with three-dimensional reconstructions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I diagnostic study.

High rate of return to sport and excellent patient-reported outcomes after an open Latarjet procedure

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to report return to sport, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), subjective outcomes, and complications or failures in patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery performed by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons between August 2006 and November 2018 were included. Prospectively collected data were reviewed. Recurrent instability and revision surgical procedures were recorded. Subjective outcomes included return to sport and fear of reinjury or activity modification as a result of patients' instability history. PROs included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and satisfaction. Age, sex, sports participation, pain, primary vs. revision surgery (prior failed arthroscopic or open Bankart repair), dislocation number, glenoid bone loss, glenoid track concept, and projected glenoid track were evaluated. Failure was defined as an ASES score <70, recurrent dislocation, or revision instability surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 126 shoulders (125 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 28.1 years (range, 15-57 years). Of 126 shoulders, 7 (5.5%) underwent additional procedures prior to final follow-up and were excluded from outcome analyses; failure occurred in 6 of these shoulders. Mean follow-up data at 3.7 years (range, 2-9.3 years) were attained in 86.6% of patients (103 of 119). All PROs significantly improved from preoperative baseline (ASES score, from 69.7 to 90.2; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, from 55.8 to 85.9; and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, from 28.4 to 10.5). PROs did not differ based on sex, sports participation type, dislocation with or without sports, primary vs. revision procedure, and preoperative dislocation number. No correlations existed between PROs and age, glenoid bone loss, or number of previous surgical procedures. On-track lesions (50 of 105, 47.6%) and projected on-track lesions (90 of 105, 85.7%) correlated with better patient satisfaction but not PROs. Despite not having recurrences, 63 of 99 patients (63.6%) reported activity modifications and 44 of 99 patients (44.4%) feared reinjury. These groups had statistically worse PROs, although the minimal clinically important difference was not met. Return to sport was reported by 97% of patients (86 of 89), with 74% (66 of 89) returning at the same level or slightly below the preinjury level. Revision stabilization surgery was required 6 of 126 cases (4.8%), and 6 of 103 shoulders (5.8%) had ASES scores <70.

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet procedure led to significant improvements in all PROs, and overall, 97% of patients returned to sport. Fear of reinjury and activity modifications were common after open Latarjet procedures but did not appear to affect clinical outcomes. On-track and projected on-track measurements correlated with better patient satisfaction but not improved PROs.

Athletes with primary glenohumeral instability demonstrate lower rates of bone loss than those with recurrent instability and failed prior stabilization

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the preoperative magnetic resonance arthrography findings in patients who underwent glenohumeral stabilization with a history of primary instability, recurrent instability, or failed stabilization.

METHODS

All patients who presented with glenohumeral instability and underwent stabilization performed by a single surgeon in our institution between 2008 and 2020 were considered for inclusion in this study. The magnetic resonance arthrography findings of all patients were recorded. Imaging findings were compared between patients with primary instability, those with recurrent instability, and those with failed prior stabilization. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 871 patients were included, of whom 814 (93.5%) were male patients; the mean age was 23.1 years (range, 13-57 years). There were 200 patients with primary instability, 571 with recurrent instability, and 100 who required revision stabilization surgery, with no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. A significantly higher amount of glenoid bone loss was noted in patients with recurrent instability (43.4%) and failed prior stabilization (56%) than in those with primary instability (26.5%) (P < .0001). Additionally, a significantly higher number of Hill-Sachs lesions were observed in patients with recurrent instability (70.1%) and failed prior stabilization (89%) than in those with primary instability (67.5%) (P < .0001). We found no significant differences between the groups regarding articular cartilage damage, glenolabral articular disruption, anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion, humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments, or superior labral anterior-posterior tears (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting for stabilization with recurrent instability or following a failed stabilization procedure have higher rates of glenohumeral bone loss than those with primary instability. Therefore, stabilization of primary instability, particularly in high-functioning athletes with a view to preventing recurrence, may reduce the overall progression of glenohumeral bone loss and potential subsequent inferior clinical outcomes.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part III-Revision Surgery, Rehabilitation and Return to Play, and Clinical Follow-Up-An International Consensus Statement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on revision surgery, rehabilitation and return to play, and clinical follow-up for anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.

RESULTS

The primary relative indications for revision surgery include symptomatic apprehension or recurrent instability, additional intra-articular pathologies, and symptomatic hardware failure. In revision cases, the differentiating factors that dictate treatment are the degree of glenohumeral bone loss and rotator cuff function/integrity. The minimum amount of time before allowing athletes to return to play is unknown, but other factors should be considered, including restoration of strength, range of motion and proprioception, and resolved pain and apprehension, as these are prognostic factors of reinjury. Additionally, psychological factors should be considered in the rehabilitation process. Patients should be clinically followed up for a minimum of 12 months or until a return to full, premorbid function/activities. Finally, the following factors should be included in anterior shoulder instability-specific, patient-reported outcome measures: function/limitations impact on activities of daily living, return to sport/activity, instability symptoms, confidence in shoulder, and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 92% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were indications and factors affecting decisions for revision surgery, as well as how prior surgeries impact procedure choice. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the role of psychological factors in the return to play, considerations for allowing return to play, as well as prognostic factors. Finally, there was a lack of unanimous consensus on recommended timing and methods for clinical follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Clinical outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review of studies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to review the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies in which arthroscopic Bankart repair was performed as a revision procedure were included. The clinical outcomes extracted and analyzed were functional outcomes, return to play, and recurrent instability.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 433 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male patients (63.7%); the average age was 26.1 years (range, 14-58 years), and the mean follow-up period was 37.6 months (range, 10-144 months). The mean Rowe score was 84.2, and 79.7% of patients had good to excellent outcomes. The rate of return to play was 78.5%, with 47.5% of patients returning to their preinjury level of play across 10 studies. The rate of recurrent instability was reported in 12 studies, with 328 shoulders demonstrating 86 instability events (26.2%). The rate of recurrent instability due to dislocation was reported in 7 studies (n = 176), with 19 events (10.8%), whereas the rate of subluxation was reported in 4 studies (n = 76), with 6 events (7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability was shown to result in a high rate of recurrent shoulder instability. There was a relatively poor rate of return to sport among athletes, and only about half of the patients were able to return at or above their preoperative level of ability.

Return to Professional Australian Rules Football After Surgery for Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability

BACKGROUND

The treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability in professional Australian Football League (AFL) players is challenging, with an emphasis on early return to play and avoidance of instability recurrence.

PURPOSE

To investigate return-to-sport (RTS) outcomes and complications after 2 different procedures for traumatic anterior shoulder instability in professional AFL players.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our surgical database for professional AFL players who underwent capsulolabral stabilization or open Latarjet procedure by a single surgeon between 2006 and 2017. Outcomes included RTS, on-field performance, and complications. Between-group analyses for RTS and complications were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Within-group analyses for on-field performance data were performed using paired t tests with significance set at .05.

RESULTS

A total of 58 capsulolabral stabilization procedures in 54 players and 32 Latarjet procedures in 29 players were included in the analysis; 93.1% of capsulolabral patients and 96.9% of Latarjet patients returned to professional AFL. The median RTS time was 6.8 months for the capsulolabral group and 7.3 months for the Latarjet group. There was no significant difference in RTS rates between the 2 groups (P = .270). Of those undergoing surgery early in the season, 75% of the capsulolabral and 71% of Latarjet group were able to RTS within the same season, at a mean time of 16.9 weeks and 18.8 weeks, respectively. There was a significant difference in instability recurrence, with 19% for the capsulolabral group and no recurrence in the Latarjet group (P = .017). There was no significant reduction in player on-field performance in either group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the median RTS in AFL players was approximately 7 months after capsulolabral and Latarjet surgery with no compromise to on-field performance. Instability-related complications occurred only in the capsulolabral group, and the incidence increased with time.

Editorial Commentary: Lower Return to Play After Failed Prior Instability Surgery: Should the Open Latarjet Be the Gold Standard for Anterior Shoulder Instability?

Anterior shoulder instability is common in contact athletes. Arthroscopic Bankart repair can result in good clinical outcomes, but high recurrence rates have been reported. The open Latarjet procedure can result in excellent functional outcomes with low rates of recurrent instability. Despite these encouraging results, there may be a lower return to play rate in athletes undergoing this procedure for a prior failed instability surgery. Due to the complexity of the procedure and high complication rate, the open Latarjet should continue to be reserved for cases of significant glenoid bone loss or revision settings.

Decreased motion with normal strength after Latarjet procedure has minimal impact on return to activity

PURPOSE

The Latarjet procedure can affect the range of motion (ROM) and strength of the shoulder, which determine the time to return to the preinjury level of activity. This study prospectively assessed whether the Latarjet procedure leads to a decrease in range of motion and muscle strength, affecting the time to return to the previous level of activity.

METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure for recurrent dislocation of the shoulder were included prospectively. The ROM, strength, Walch-Duplay score, and Rowe score were measured every 3 months for 1 year and then every 6 months for 2 years. Radiological assessments were performed to confirm the graft location, union, and the humeral head position in abduction and external rotation (ER).

RESULTS

Out of 51 patients, 49 completed all follow-ups. The median age was 27 years (17-45 years), and the dominant side was involved in 36 patients. The median number of dislocations was 11 (5-50). Twelve patients were sleep dislocators. There was a significant loss (p < 0.0001) of abduction, forward flexion (FF), ER, and internal rotation (IR) in the affected shoulder compared to the contralateral shoulder. Recovery plateaued at 12 months. There was near complete recovery of muscle strength after the Latarjet procedure, and the difference between the affected and contralateral shoulders was not significant (n.s.). The modified Rowe score was excellent in 44 (90%) patients, and the Walch-Duplay score was excellent in 43 patients (88%) at 24 months. Suboptimal results were associated with non-compliance with rehabilitation in two (4%) patients and neglected unreduced dislocation in one (2%) patient. The coracoid graft position was below the equator in 44 patients (90%). Forty-six patients (94%) could return to the previous level of activity.

CONCLUSION

The Latarjet procedure results in a restricted ROM of the shoulder, but there is no loss of muscle strength.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

No difference in 90-day complication rate following open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedure

The purpose of this study was to compare the 90-day complication rate between the open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. A retrospective review of patients who underwent an open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure at NYU Langone Health between 2012 and 2019 was performed. The complications, readmissions, and reoperations within 90 days were assessed. Outcomes were compared between the two approaches, and a p value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The study included 150 patients (open: 110; arthroscopic: 40), with no patients lost to follow-up within the first 90 days. Both cohorts were similar in terms of patient demographics. No intra-operative complications were observed in either group. Overall, there were 4 post-operative complications with the open approach and 2 with the arthroscopic approach (3.6% and 5.0%, respectively; n.s.) during the study period. Three patients required a readmission within the 90-day period; one patient in both groups required a revision Latarjet for graft fracture, and one patient in the open Latarjet required irrigation and debridement for deep infection (n.s.). With the open approach, there were 2 (2.3%) wound complications, 1 graft complication, and 1 (1.1%) nerve injury. With the arthroscopic approach, there was 1 (2.8%) wound complication and 1 (2.8%) hardware complication. The safety, and 90-day complication and readmission profile of arthroscopic Latarjet is similar to open Latarjet procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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.