The role of arthroscopy in the revision of failed Latarjet procedures

Recurrent Instability after the Latarjet Procedure

The Latarjet procedure is a favored approach for managing chronic and recurrent dislocation, especially in the presence of bone loss. Although generally yielding excellent results, the procedure carries a 15 to 30% complication rate. Although recurrent instability is a major concern, various complications such as infection, nerve injuries, and hardware impingement can also necessitate revision after a Latarjet procedure. Strategies for addressing this issue include glenoid bone grafting, using autogenous bone grafts from the iliac crest or distal clavicle, and allografts, with fresh lateral distal tibial allografts offering advantages because of their osteochondral nature. In addition, soft-tissue procedures offer another solution for recurrent instability, suitable for patients lacking substantial bone loss or those experiencing multidirectional instability. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the causes and management strategies for recurrent instability following a failed Latarjet procedure.

A Systematic Review of Screw and Suture Button Glenoid Augmentation Constructs

Background

Glenohumeral dislocations often lead to glenoid bone loss and recurrent instability, warranting bony augmentation. While numerous biomechanical studies have investigated fixation methods to secure a graft to the glenoid, a review of available constructs has yet to be performed.

Purpose

To synthesize the literature and compare the biomechanics of screw and suture button constructs for anterior glenoid bony augmentation.

Study Design

Systematic review.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. There were 2 independent reviewers who performed a literature search using the PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases of studies published between 1950 and 2020. Studies were included that compared the biomechanical outcomes of fixation for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss.

Results

Overall, 13 of the 363 studies screened met the inclusion criteria. The included studies measured the biomechanical strength of screws or suture buttons on a cadaveric or synthetic Latarjet construct. Screws and suture buttons were biomechanically similar, as both constructs exhibited comparable loads at failure and final displacement. Screw type (diameter, threading, or composition) did not significantly affect construct strength, and double-screw fixation was superior to single-screw fixation. Additionally, 2 screws augmented with a small plate had a higher load at failure than screws that were not augmented. Unicortical double-screw fixation was inferior to bicortical double-screw fixation, although construct strength did not significantly decrease if 1 of these screws was unicortical. Further, 2 screws inserted at 15° off axis experienced significantly higher graft displacement and lower ultimate failure loads than those inserted at 0° parallel to the glenoid.

Conclusion

Suture buttons provided comparable strength to screws and offer an effective alternative to reduce screw-related complications. Augmentation with a small plate may clinically enhance construct strength and decrease complications through the dispersion of force loads over a greater surface area. Differences in screw type did not appear to alter construct strength, provided that screws were placed parallel to the articular surface and were bicortical.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

Background:

The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results.

Purpose:

To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery.

Results:

The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003).

Conclusion:

In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

Failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review of surgery revision options

Background

Revision surgery after the Latarjet procedure is a rare and challenging surgical problem, and various bony or capsular procedures have been proposed. This systematic review examines clinical and radiographic outcomes of different procedures for treating persistent pain or recurrent instability after a Latarjet procedure.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Ovid databases with the combined keywords “failed”, “failure”, “revision”, “Latarjet”, “shoulder stabilization” and “shoulder instability” to identify articles published in English that deal with failed Latarjet procedures.

Results

A total of 11 studies (five retrospective and six case series investigations), all published between 2008 and 2020, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. For the study, 253 patients (254 shoulders, 79.8% male) with a mean age of 29.6 years (range: 16–54 years) were reviewed at an average follow-up of 51.5 months (range: 24–208 months).

Conclusions

Eden–Hybinette and arthroscopic capsuloplasty are the most popular and safe procedures to treat recurrent instability after a failed Latarjet procedure, and yield reasonable clinical outcomes. A bone graft procedure and capsuloplasty were proposed but there was no clear consensus on their efficacy and indication.

Level of evidence

Level IV

Trial registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020185090—www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/

Revision Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet for Failed Primary Arthroscopic Stabilization With Subcritical Bone Loss

Background:

Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures.

Results:

No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups.

Conclusion:

Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair.

Failure of coracoid bone-block

The rate of recurrence of anterior unidirectional instability is lower after coracoid bone-block than with other techniques, even if failures still occur with this difficult procedure. Failure may consist in recurrent instability (dislocation, subluxation, unstable painful shoulder) or despite absence of obvious clinical signs, in radiologic failure (non-union, fracture), biologic failure (osteolysis) or infection, all of which may require revision surgery or lead to late instability or subclinical chronic apprehension. Clinical, X-ray and CT assessment identifies the type of failure and may lead to a second surgery being discussed with the patient according to functional demand. Technical error is often implicated and is generally due to deficient coracoid preparation, insufficient conjoint and coracoid tendon release or problems of positioning and fixing the bone-block on the glenoid. There are 2 types of revision surgery. Iliac bone-block involves the same demands as coracoid bone-block; it stabilises the shoulder and provides very good functional results. Although less effective, anterior capsule repair can also stabilise the shoulder when associated to posterior Hill-Sachs lesion remplissage by infraspinatus tenodesis. Osteoarthritis of the shoulder may set in after any surgical revision and impair the result.

Biomechanical Analysis of Plate Fixation Compared With Various Screw Configurations for Use in the Latarjet Procedure

Background:

The biomechanical properties of coracoid fixation with a miniplate during the Latarjet procedure have not been described.

Purpose:

To determine the biomechanical properties of miniplate fixation for the Latarjet procedure compared with various screw fixation configurations.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 8 groups (n = 5 specimens per group) were tested at a screw insertion angle of 0°: (1) 3.75-mm single screw, (2) 3.75-mm double screw, (3) 3.75-mm double screw with washers, (4) 3.75-mm double screw with a miniplate, (5) 4.00-mm single screw, (6) 4.00-mm double screw, (7) 4.00-mm double screw with washers, and (8) 4.00-mm double screw with a miniplate. In addition, similar to groups 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, there were 30 additional specimens (n = 5 per group) tested at a screw insertion angle of 15° (groups 9-14). To maintain specimen uniformity, rigid polyurethane foam blocks were used. Testing parameters included a preload of 214 N for 10 seconds, cyclical loading from 184 to 736 N at 1 Hz for 100 cycles, and failure loading at a rate of 15 mm/min until 10 mm of displacement or specimen failure occurred.

Results:

All single-screw constructs and 77% of 15° screw constructs failed before the completion of cyclical loading. Across all groups, group 8 (4.00-mm double screw with miniplate) demonstrated the highest maximum failure load (P < .001). There were no differences in failure loads among specimens with single-screw fixation (groups 1, 5, 9, and 12; P > .05). All specimens in groups 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (insertion angle of 15°) had significantly lower maximum failure loads compared with specimens in groups 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (insertion angle of 0°) (P < .001 for all).

Conclusion:

These results indicate significantly superior failure loads with the miniplate compared with all other constructs. Across all fixation techniques and screw sizes, constructs with screws inserted at 0° performed better than constructs with screws inserted at 15°.

Clinical Relevance:

The use of a miniplate for coracoid fixation during the Latarjet procedure may provide a more durable construct for the high-demand contact athlete.

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review

Background

Primary shoulder stabilization is successful, but there continues to be a risk of recurrence after operative repair, particularly in the young athlete. It is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes after various revision stabilization techniques to best counsel patients and manage expectations.

Purpose

To analyze recurrent instability and revision surgery rates in patients who underwent revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization procedures with either arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of level 2 to 4 evidence studies using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization (arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. The rate of recurrent instability, rate of revision surgery, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were extracted and reported. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score.

Results

A total of 37 studies met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis: 20 studies evaluated arthroscopic repair, 8 evaluated open repair, 5 evaluated Latarjet procedure, 3 evaluated bone block, and 2 evaluated capsular reconstruction. There was 1 study included in both arthroscopic and Latarjet procedures, for a total of 1110 revision cases. There was 1 level 2 study, and the remainder were level 3 or 4 with poor Downs and Black scores. Participants analyzed were most commonly young (weighted mean age, 26.1 years) and male (78.4%). The weighted mean clinical follow-up after revision surgery was 47.8 months. The weighted mean rate of recurrent instability was 3.8% (n = 245) after the Latarjet procedure, 13.4% (n = 260) after open repair, 16.0% (n = 531) after arthroscopic repair, 20.8% (n = 72) after bone block, and 31.0% (n = 35) after capsular reconstruction. The weighted mean rate of additional revision surgery was 0.0% after bone block, 0.02% after the Latarjet procedure, 9.0% after arthroscopic repair, 9.3% after open repair, and 22.8% after capsular reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes and objective measures of range of motion and strength improved with all revision techniques.

Conclusion

The current review identifies a deficiency in the literature pertaining to consistent meaningful outcomes and the effect of bone loss after revision shoulder stabilization. Published studies demonstrate, however, that revision shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or bone block techniques yielded satisfactory objective and patient-reported outcomes. The Latarjet procedure exhibited the lowest recurrent instability rate. This study confirms that recurrent instability remains a common problem, despite revision shoulder stabilization. The quality of research in revision shoulder stabilization remains poor, and higher quality studies are needed to establish best practices for treatment of this complex problem.

Failed Latarjet surgery: why, how, and what next?

Background

The Latarjet procedure is an established and popular procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability; however, to our knowledge, few studies have reported on the outcomes of revision for failed Latarjet surgery. We reviewed the causes and management of recurrent instability after previous Latarjet stabilization surgery. The outcomes of revision surgery were also evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospective data in patients undergoing revision surgery after failed Latarjet stabilization was conducted. Data were collected over a 5-year period and included patient demographics, clinical presentation, cause of recurrent instability, indications for revision surgery, intraoperative analysis, outcomes of revision surgery, and return to sport.

Results

We identified 16 patients (12 male and 4 female patients) who underwent revision surgery for recurrent instability after Latarjet stabilization. Of these patients, 11 were athletes: 9 professional and 2 amateur athletes. The mean age at revision was 29.9 ± 8.9 years (range, 17-50 years). The indications for revision were anterior instability in 11 patients, posterior instability in 4, and both anterior and posterior instability in 1. Of the anterior instability cases, 54.5% were due to coracoid nonunion and 36.4% were due to capsular failure (retear). All posterior instability cases had posterior capsulolabral injuries, and the mean Beighton score in this group was 6 or higher. One patient had a failed Latarjet procedure with coracoid nonunion and a posterior labral tear.

Conclusion

Coracoid nonunion was the most common cause of recurrence after Latarjet stabilization, requiring an Eden-Hybinette procedure. The patients who returned with posterior instability had a high incidence of hypermobility and could be treated successfully by arthroscopic techniques.

Editorial Commentary: Taming Hard Problems With Soft Tissues? Anterior Shoulder Instability After Prior Bone Block Stabilization

Recurrent anterior shoulder instability after prior bone block stabilization is a therapeutically challenging condition. Historically, repeated glenoid bone grafting has been advocated in such cases to achieve lasting shoulder stability. However, recent insights into the pathomechanics of shoulder instability, especially regarding bipolar bony lesions, have renewed our interest in the arthroscopic treatment of Hill-Sachs lesions and the role of soft-tissue interventions after bone block procedures.

The Role of Arthroscopic Soft Tissue Reconstruction for Failed Bristow-Latarjet Procedure

PURPOSE

To analyze the functional results after unipolar or bipolar arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization in the treatment of recurrent anterior instability after a coracoid bone block procedure.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective series of 41 patients (33 male, 8 female) with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bristow (n = 7) or Latarjet (n = 34) coracoid bone block treated with unipolar (isolated Bankart, n = 22) or bipolar (Bankart + Hill-Sachs remplissage, n = 19) arthroscopic stabilization.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 72 (25-208) months. Severe glenoid erosion (>25%) was found in 17 patients, and a medium or deep Hill-Sachs lesion (Calandra 2 and 3) was found in 24 patients. A radiographic control was available in 28 patients at final follow-up. Five patients (12%) presented a recurrence of instability (4 subluxations, 1 dislocation). Two patients required revision surgery, 1 in each group. At final follow-up, persistent anterior apprehension was more frequent in patients presenting with severe glenoid bone loss (P = .04) and in patients with medium or deep Hill-Sachs lesions who were treated with unipolar stabilization (P = .04). Return to sports was achieved in 81% of cases. Visual analog scale was 1.3 ± 2, subjective shoulder value was 83% ± 18%, Rowe score was 78 ± 24, and Walch-Duplay score was 76 ± 28. No patients developed severe glenohumeral arthritis (Samilson 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization provides good functional results after failed coracoid bone block with an acceptable rate of recurrence and a return to sports in most cases. Patients with significant Hill-Sachs lesions showed better results when treated with combined Bankart repair and Hill-Sachs remplissage. Severe glenoid bone loss was associated with poorer functional results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Analysis of failures after the Bristow-Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder instability

PURPOSE

Despite good clinical results and low recurrence rates, post-operative complications of coracoid process transfer procedures are not well understood. This study aims to evaluate the underlying failure mechanism in cases requiring major open revision surgery after prior Bristow or Latarjet stabilization.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and January 2017, 26 patients underwent major open revision after primary Bristow or Latarjet procedure. Clinical notes and radiographic images were retrospectively reviewed for all cases to determine underlying pathology. Choice of treatment and clinical and radiographic outcome were similarly reported for all cases.

RESULTS

The underlying failure mechanism was associated with non-union in 42.3%, resorption in 23.1%, graft malpositioning in 15.4%, and trauma or graft fracture in 19.2% of cases. Although none of the patients reported any dislocations, mean subjective shoulder score was 60.2% and WOSI scores averaged 709.3 points at final follow-up. Radiographic signs of deteriorating degenerative arthritis were seen in 34.6%.

CONCLUSION

Graft non-union resulting in recurrent instability was the main indication for open revision surgery after Bristow or Latarjet procedure, followed by resorption, malpositioning, and graft fracture in this retrospective case series. Revision surgery consisted of a structural iliac crest bone graft in the majority of cases. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are predictably variable in this population of multioperated patients.

Contraindications and complications of the Latarjet procedure

The Latarjet procedure is a well-known, safe and reliable technique to treat primary or recurrent anterior dislocations or subluxations, with or without hyperlaxity, with or without glenoid bone loss. Both the open and the arthroscopic methods produce excellent clinical results, with a low rate of recurrent instability. There have been concerns of a higher surgical complication rate associated with this procedure, however, large reviews reported an overall complication rate in the open Latarjet procedure of 15%. Meticulous surgical technique and a good understanding of the local anatomy can help to avoid the complications but postoperative shoulder arthritis and frequent bone block osteolysis remain unsolved additional challenges, which require further research. There are 2 main factors to further improve the clinical outcome and patient satisfaction: careful patient selection with good surgical indication, and reducing complications with adequate surgical techniques. The aim of this study is to provide the current overview of the contraindications and complications of the Latarjet procedure.

Functional outcome after arthroscopic management of traumatic recurrent dislocation shoulder using Bankart repair and Remplissage techniques

Background

Recurrent dislocation shoulder is one of the common shoulder injuries encountered by the orthopedic surgeon in clinical practice. Bankart repair using the arthroscopic method has become one of the standard techniques in the management of recurrent dislocation shoulder. Remplissage technique can be used as adjunct to Bankart repair in certain conditions.

Method

In this case series, we have assessed the functional outcome and return to activity at midterm follow-up after arthroscopic management.

Results

51 patients with traumatic shoulder dislocation were operated using the shoulder arthroscopic technique. Rowe score improved significantly at the latest follow-up. No major complication was noticed in our case series.

Conclusion

The shoulder arthroscopy procedure requires special instrumentation and expertise. We believe that this is a less invasive and safe procedure and provides an additional tool in the management of instabilities including in cases of complex recurrent dislocation of the shoulder.

Arthroscopic Subscapularis Augmentation of Bankart Repair in Chronic Anterior Shoulder Instability With Bone Loss Less Than 25% and Capsular Deficiency: Clinical Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

To assess the short-term outcomes of the arthroscopic subscapularis augmentation (ASA) technique, consisting of a tenodesis of the upper third of the subscapularis tendon and a Bankart repair, and its effect on shoulder external rotation.

METHODS

Patients selected for this study were involved in contact sports, with a history of traumatic recurrent shoulder dislocations and a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria were patients with glenoid bone loss (GBL) ranging from 5% to 25%, anterior capsular deficiency, and Hill-Sachs lesion who underwent ASA technique. Exclusion criteria were GBL >25%, multidirectional instability, preexisting osteoarthritis, and overhead sports activities. Visual analog scale (VAS) scale for pain, Rowe score, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess results. Loss of shoulder external rotation was measured with the arm at the side (ER1 position) or 90° in abduction (ER2 position). Analysis of variance and Fisher tests were used for data evaluation. Significance was established at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients (84 men and 26 women, mean age 27 years) were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 40.5 months (range: 24 to 65 months). In 98 patients, a Hill-Sachs lesion was observed and in 57 patients a capsular deficiency was present. Three patients (2.7%) had a traumatic redislocation. At final follow-up, the mean scores were as follows: VAS scale decreased from a mean of 3.5 to 0.5 (P = .015), Rowe score increased from 57.4 to 95.3 (P = .035), and ASES score increased from 66.5 to 96.5 (P = .021). The mean deficit of external rotation was 8° ± 2.5° in the ER1 position and 4° ± 1.5° in the ER2 position.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASA procedure has been shown to be effective in restoring joint stability in patients practicing sports, affected by chronic anterior shoulder instability associated with anterior GBL (<25%), capsular deficiency, and Hill-Sachs lesions, with mild restriction of external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

All-Arthroscopic Revision Eden-Hybinette Procedure for Failed Instability Surgery: Technique and Preliminary Results

PURPOSE

To describe the technique of an all-arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure in the revision setting for treatment of a failed instability procedure, particularly after failed Latarjet, as well as to present preliminary results of this technique.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2011, 18 shoulders with persistent instability after failed instability surgery were treated with an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette technique using an autologous bicortical iliac crest bone graft. Of 18 patients, 12 (9 men, 3 women) were available for follow-up. The average follow-up was 28.8 months (range, 15 to 60 months). A Latarjet procedure was performed as an index surgery in 10 patients (83%). Two patients (17%) had a prior arthroscopic Bankart repair.

RESULTS

Eight patients (67%) obtained a good or excellent result, whereas 4 patients (33%) reported a fair or poor result. Seven patients (58%) returned to sport activities. A positive apprehension test persisted in 5 patients (42%), including 2 patients (17%) with recurrent subluxations. The Rowe score increased from 30.00 to 78.33 points (P < .0001). The Walch-Duplay score increased from 11.67 to 76.67 points (P < .0001). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score showed a good result of 28.71% (603 points). The average anterior flexion was 176° (range, 150° to 180°), and the average external rotation was 66° (range, 0° to 90°). Two patients (16.67%) showed a progression of glenohumeral osteoarthritic changes, with each patient increasing by one stage in the Samilson-Prieto classification. All 4 patients (33%) with a fair or poor result had a nonunion identified on postoperative computed tomography scan.

CONCLUSIONS

An all-arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure in the revision setting for failed instability surgery, although technically demanding, is a safe, effective, and reproducible technique. Although the learning curve is considerable, this procedure offers all the advantages of arthroscopic surgery and allows reconstruction of glenoid defects and restoration of shoulder stability in this challenging patient population. In our hands, this procedure yields good or excellent results in 67% of patients. Successful outcome is correlated with bony healing of the iliac crest graft to the glenoid.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature.

RESULTS

Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

Evaluation and treatment of failed shoulder instability procedures

Management of the unstable shoulder after a failed stabilization procedure can be difficult and challenging. Detailed understanding of the native shoulder anatomy, including its static and dynamic restraints, is necessary for determining the patient’s primary pathology. In addition, evaluation of the patient’s history, physical exam, and imaging is important for identifying the cause for failure after the initial procedure. Common mistakes include under-appreciation of bony defects, failure to recognize capsular laxity, technical errors, and missed associated pathology. Many potential treatment options exist for revision surgery, including open or arthroscopic Bankart repair, bony augmentation procedures, and management of Hill Sachs defects. The aim of this narrative review is to discuss in-depth the common risk factors for post-surgical failure, components for appropriate evaluation, and the different surgical options available for revision stabilization.

Level of evidence Level V.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair and subscapularis augmentation: an alternative technique treating anterior shoulder instability with bone loss

BACKGROUND

This study presents the preliminary results of a new arthroscopic technique consisting of the association of 2 procedures, capsulolabral repair and subscapularis augmentation tenodesis, in the treatment of traumatic anterior shoulder instability with both glenoid bone loss and a Hill-Sachs lesion.

METHODS

Eighty-nine patients engaged in sports were enrolled in this retrospective case-series study with 2 to 5 years' follow-up. All patients underwent a computed tomography scan to assess the percentage of glenoid bone loss by the Pico method. A prior stabilization procedure had failed in 20 patients, who were then segregated into a different group. Visual analog scale (VAS), Rowe, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were used to assess the results.

RESULTS

Only 3 of 89 patients had a post-traumatic redislocation. The mean length of follow-up was 31.5 months (range, 25-60 months). The VAS, Rowe, and ASES scores showed significant improvements: The VAS score decreased from a mean of 3.1 to 0.5 (P = .0157), the Rowe score increased from 58.9 to 94.1 (P = .0215), and the ASES score increased from 68.5 to 95.5 (P = .0197). The mean deficit of external rotation was 6° with the arm at the side of the trunk, and the mean deficit was 3° with the arm in 90° of abduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The described procedure is a reproducible and effective technique used to restore joint stability in patients engaged in sports who have incurred anterior recurrent shoulder dislocation associated with glenoid bone loss (<25%) and a Hill-Sachs lesion.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair: Have we finally reached a gold standard?

Traditionally, surgical stabilization of the unstable shoulder has been performed through an open incision. Arthroscopic Bankart repair with suture anchors is now widely considered the treatment of choice for anterior shoulder instability in patients who have failed conservative management. Many different factors have now been elucidated for adequate treatment of glenohumeral instability. Because of technical advances in instability repair combined with an increased understanding of factors that lead to recurrent instability, the outcomes following arthroscopic Bankart repair have significantly improved and approach those of open techniques.

Clinical outcomes following revision anterior shoulder arthroscopic capsulolabral stabilization

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally surgeons have treated failed shoulder instability with open capsulolabral repair. Despite improved instrumentation, technique and familiarity in shoulder arthroscopy, few studies have reported the outcomes of arthroscopic revision shoulder instability repair. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical outcomes in patients following revision shoulder arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral stabilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients (63 shoulders) with failure of primary instability repairs were treated with revision arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization at a mean follow-up of 46.9 ± 16.8 months (range 18-78). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog pain scale and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. In addition, patients were queried for recurrent instability events (subluxation or dislocation) or revision surgery.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, the mean postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability normalized score was 80.1 ± 18.7 (range 15.0-100). There were clinically significant improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores and ten-point visual analog scale for pain (P < 0.001). Recurrent instability occurred in 12 shoulders (19.0 %), with number of prior surgeries and hyperlaxity found to be significant risk factor for failure (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroscopic anterior stabilization of the shoulder can result in satisfactory outcomes in appropriately selected patients who have failed previous capsulolabral repair. An increased number of prior surgeries and hyperlaxity are predictive of poor outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series, LOE IV.

Recurrent instability after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of revision anterior stabilization surgeries based on technique. This study also sought to compare the impact of bone defects on outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus was performed in July 2012 and March 2013. Of 345 articles identified in the search, 17 studies with Level I to IV Evidence satisfied the inclusion criteria and were analyzed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Recurrent instability was defined as redislocation, resubluxation, or a positive apprehensive test after revision surgery. Procedures were categorized as arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Bankart repair, Bristow-Latarjet procedure, and other open procedures.

RESULTS

In total, 388 shoulders were studied. Male patients comprised 74.1% of patients, 66.7% of cases involved the dominant shoulder, the mean age was 28.2 years, and the mean follow-up period was 44.2 months. The surgical procedures classified as "other open procedures" had the highest rate of recurrent instability (42.7%), followed by arthroscopic Bankart repair (14.7%), the Bristow-Latarjet procedure (14.3%), and open Bankart repair (5.5%). Inconsistent reporting of bone defects precluded drawing significant conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of different procedures are used to address recurrent instability after a primary operation for anterior shoulder instability has failed. There is significant variability in the rate of recurrent instability after revision anterior shoulder stabilization surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair

PURPOSE

Failed anterior shoulder stabilization procedures have traditionally been treated with open procedures. Recent advances in arthroscopic techniques have allowed for certain failed stabilization procedures to be treated by arthroscopic surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) for articles on revision arthroscopic Bankart repairs. Key words included shoulder dislocation, anterior shoulder instability, revision surgery, and arthroscopic Bankart repair. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies comprising 349 patients. All studies were retrospective (1 Level II study and 15 Level IV studies). The mean incidence of recurrent instability after revision arthroscopic Bankart repair was 12.7%, and the mean follow-up period was 35.4 months. The most common cause for failure of the primary surgeries was a traumatic injury (62.1%), and 85.1% of patients returned to playing sports. The reasons for failure of revision cases included glenohumeral bone loss, hyperlaxity, and return to contact sports.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper patient selection, the outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair appear similar to those of revision open Bankart repair. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Outcomes of two surgical revision techniques for recurrent anterior shoulder instability following selective capsular repair

INTRODUCTION

Conventional capsulolabral reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability fails with recurrent instability in up to 23% of cases. Few studies have evaluated surgical revision strategies and outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes in a homogeneous series of surgical revisions after selective capsular repair (SCR).

HYPOTHESIS

Observed anatomic lesions can guide the choice between repeat SCR and coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2005 to January 2009, 11 patients with trauma-related recurrent anterior shoulder instability (episodes of subluxation and/or dislocation) after SCR were included. Mean age was 31 years (range, 19-45 years). At revision, a glenoid bony defect was present in six patients. Repeat SCR was performed in five patients and coracoid transfer in six patients.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 40 months (range, 24-65 months), no patient had experienced further episodes of instability. However, four patients had a positive apprehension test. External rotation decreased significantly by more than 20° after both techniques. The Simple Shoulder Test, Walch-Duplay, and Rowe scores were 10.5, 79, and 85, respectively. No patient had a subscapularis tear. Of these 11 patients, nine were able to resume their sporting activities and eight reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the subjective outcome. Radiographs showed fibrous non-union of the coracoid transfer in one patient.

CONCLUSION

In patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after SCR, repeat SCR and coracoid transfer produce similarly satisfactory outcomes. The size of the glenoid bone defect may be the best criterion for choosing between these two procedures. However, open revision surgery may decrease the range of motion, most notably in external rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.