Recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with engaging Hill–Sachs defect: remplissage or Latarjet?

Glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width percentage score are useful to select optimal operation for the treatment of glenohumeral instability in overhead athletes: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus open Latarjet

PURPOSE

Glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesion in contact and overhead athletes with subcritical bone loss is challenging to treat with high recurrent instability. Treatment options are arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet operations. However, there is no consensus on their effectiveness. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes and return to sports after both operations and whether evaluating the glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs width to calculate the total bone loss can help determine the appropriate operation.

METHODS

In this retrospective comparative analysis, 30 athletes who underwent index arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (n = 16) or Latarjet procedure (n = 14) between 2017 and 2020 were included. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were routinely performed. The quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), instability severity index (ISI) scores and range of motion (ROM) were recorded preoperatively and at a mean follow-up of 53 months (SD = 12). Follow-up included time-to-return sports, self-perceived sports performance level and complications/recurrent dislocations.

RESULTS

Preoperative qDASH, ASES, ISI scores, ages and genders were similar. The Latarjet group had significantly larger glenoid bone loss, Hill-Sachs width and total bone loss (p < 0.01). Both groups had significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after the operations (p < 0.01). Athletes with a total bone loss <25% underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage and total bone loss ≥25% underwent Latarjet procedure, and there were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative PROs, ROM, time-to-return sports and performance. There were no re-dislocations.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage or Latarjet procedure can adequately address glenohumeral instability with combined bone lesions. Patients with total bone loss scores greater than or equal to 25 may particularly benefit from the Latarjet procedure, while the minimally invasive arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage can yield equally satisfying scores for total bone loss less than 25.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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.

Increased rates of subjective shoulder instability after Bankart repair with remplissage compared to Latarjet surgery

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND

Controversy exists as to the ideal management of young active patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, and the Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage are effective surgical options. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent instability and reoperation, as well as patient-reported outcome measures, between Latarjet and arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage surgery patients. The authors hypothesized that there would be no difference in rates of recurrent instability, reoperation, and postoperative outcomes between patients who underwent Latarjet surgery and patients who underwent Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage postoperatively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent primary shoulder stabilization for shoulder instability from 2014 to 2019 were screened. Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients were included if arthroscopic surgery was performed in response to anterior shoulder instability. Recurrent instability, revision, shoulder range of motion, return to sport (RTS), and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Shoulder Instability, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form scores) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 Latarjet patients (age: 29.8 ± 12.1 years, 36 males 7 females) and 28 Bankart repair with remplissage patients (age: 28.2 ± 8.8 years, 25 males 3 females) were included with a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 1.9 years. Patients who underwent Latarjet surgery had larger amounts of bone loss (19% vs. 11%, P < .001), a lower rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (47% vs. 82%, P < .001), and more frequently had a history of chronic shoulder dislocations (88% vs. 43%, P < .001) compared to Bankart repair with remplissage patients. Latarjet patients less frequently reported feeling subjective shoulder instability after surgery (21% vs. 50%, P = .022), which was defined as feeling apprehension or experiencing a shoulder subluxation or dislocation event. There were no differences in rates of postoperative dislocation, revision, reoperation, or RTS, as well as patient-reported outcome scores, between groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in osseous defects, Latarjet and Bankart repair with remplissage patients had similar rates of clinical, patient-reported, and RTS outcomes at a mean of 3.3 years postoperatively. Latarjet surgery patients may be less likely to experience subjective shoulder instability postoperatively than patients who undergo Bankart repair with concomitant remplissage.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of anterior shoulder instability continues to evolve. The clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) in patients with increasing glenoid bone loss (GBL) has not been thoroughly compared with Latarjet.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare 2-year outcomes of REMP versus open Latarjet in patients with >15% GBL. We hypothesized that there would be no difference.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary REMP or Latarjet by 4 shoulder specialists between August 2013 and December 2019 for >15% GBL. Procedure performance was based on shared decision making between the surgeon and patient. Baseline and 2-year postoperative range of motion (ROM) and the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain. Return to sport, satisfaction, complications, recurrence, and revisions were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were available for study, including 22 who underwent REMP and 25 who underwent Latarjet. Baseline demographic characteristics, ROM, and PROs were similar between the groups. Mean preoperative GBL (REMP 25.8% ± 7.8% vs Latarjet 25.1% ± 9.0%; P = .800) and off-track lesions (REMP 59.1% vs Latarjet 44.0%; P = .302) were similar. Postoperative change in external rotation favored Latarjet (10° ± 22° vs -4° ± 13°; P = .017). Postoperative PROs, return to the sports (86.4% vs 87.5%; P = .99), and satisfaction (95.5% vs 95.8%; P = .99) were similar between groups. There were no recurrent dislocations in either group. One infected hematoma was encountered in the Latarjet cohort.

CONCLUSION

At short-term follow-up, the hypothesis was upheld. REMP and Latarjet provided similar outcomes for patients with >15% GBL, although REMP patients experienced slightly decreased external rotation. Although larger series and longer-term follow-ups are required, remplissage may be considered in patients with >15% glenoid bone loss.

Remplissage Yields Similar 2-Year Outcomes, Fewer Complications, and Low Recurrence Compared to Latarjet Across a Wide Range of Preoperative Glenoid Bone Loss

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare functional outcome, return to sport, satisfaction, postoperative recurrence, and complications in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABR) to primary Latarjet.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing primary ABR or open Latarjet between 2013 and 2019 who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Baseline and two-year range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes (PROs: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, and complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

This study included 258 patients, including 70 ABRs and 188 Latarjet procedures. Baseline demographics, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean preop glenoid bone loss (GBL) (12.3% ± 10.9% vs 7.6% ± 9%; P < .001) and off-track lesions (23% vs 13%; P = .046) were higher in the ABR group, while preoperative GBL range was similar (0-42% vs 0-47%). Changes in the VAS (1.9 vs 0.9; P = .019) and WOSI (1096 vs 805; P < .001) were improved in ABR. The percentage of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference was improved in WOSI for ABR and PASS for ABR in SANE, VAS, and WOSI scores. The ABR cohort reported worse changes in external rotation (ER) (-4° vs +19°; P < .001). Return to sport among overhead and contact athletes favored ABR (91.5% vs 72.7%; P = .007). Satisfaction and recurrent dislocation were similar. Surgical complications were observed in 0% of ABR cases, compared to 5.9% in the Latarjet group.

CONCLUSION

Primary ABR resulted in 2-year functional outcomes that were as good or superior to primary Latarjet, with higher return to sport for overhead and contact activities, fewer complications, and comparably low recurrence rates, even despite greater bipolar bone loss in the ABR cohort. However, this comes at the expense of decreased external rotation, which may be considered in individual patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage in Comparison to Bone Block Augmentation for Anterior Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Loss: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the rates of postoperative recurrence of instability, functional outcomes, and complications after treatment with bone augmentation procedures or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE were searched from database inception until June 2019 for articles examining either bone block augmentation to the glenoid or Bankart repair with remplissage (BRR) in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss. Search and data extraction were performed by 2 reviewers independently and in duplicate. A separate analysis was done for comparative studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 145 studies were identified, including 4 comparative studies. Across all studies, postoperative recurrence rates ranged from 0% to 42.8% for bone block augmentation and 0% to 15% for Bankart repair with remplissage. In comparative studies reporting subcritical glenoid bone loss, rates were 5.7% to 11.6% in the Latarjet group and 0% to 13.3% in the Bankart repair with remplissage group. However, in all studies reporting 10% to 15% mean glenoid bone loss, there was an increased rate of recurrent instability with arthroscopic soft tissue repair (6.1% to 13.2%) in comparison with bony augmentation (0% to 8.2%). Lastly, complication rates ranged from 0% to 66.7% for the bone block group and 0% to 2.3% for arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage.

CONCLUSION

Both bone block augmentation and Bankart repair with remplissage are effective treatment options for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients with bipolar bone loss but subcritical glenoid bone loss. Both have comparable functional outcomes, albeit bone block procedures carry an increased risk of complications. Arthroscopic BRR may be associated with a higher failure rate for preoperative glenoid bone loss >10%. Therefore, it may represent a stabilization procedure best suited for cases of recurrent anterior instability with glenoid bone loss <10% and the presence of a significant, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Remplissage for anterior shoulder instability with Hill-Sachs lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence in the literature to determine how arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and remplissage compare with ABR alone and the open Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with concomitant Hill-Sachs lesions.

METHODS

A literature search was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Studies comparing ABR and remplissage vs. ABR alone or the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with Hill-Sachs lesions were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager (version 5.3). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Twelve clinical trials were included. There was a significant difference between ABR plus remplissage and ABR alone in total recurrence rate (3.2% vs. 16.8%, P < .05) but not the rate of revision due to recurrence (1.7% vs. 8.5%, P = .06). There was no significant difference between the Latarjet procedure and ABR plus remplissage in total recurrence rate (7.0% vs. 9.8%, P = .39), total revision rate (3.7% vs. 5.7%, P = .41), and rate of revision due to recurrence (1.6% vs. 2.1%, P = .79). There was a significantly lower rate of complications with ABR and remplissage compared with the Latarjet procedure (0.5% vs. 8.6%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

In patients with Hill-Sachs lesions and subcritical glenoid bone loss, ABR with remplissage resulted in lower rates of recurrent instability compared with ABR alone while resulting in similar recurrence rates, as well as similar patient-reported outcomes, with lower morbidity and fewer complications, compared with the Latarjet procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; Systematic Review.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus Latarjet procedure for management of engaging Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss in traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A large engaging Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) with subcritical glenoid bone loss (GBL) is approached through either increasing the glenoid arc by the Latarjet procedure or converting the HSL to an extra-articular defect by arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (BRR). Until now, there has been no evidence-based consensus about which of these 2 most appropriate procedures is the better surgical choice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the current literature comparing results of BRR vs. the Latarjet procedure in the treatment of engaging HSLs with subcritical GBL.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was completed for studies that compared the clinical outcomes and complications of BRR vs. the Latarjet procedure with minimum follow-up of 2 years. The outcome measures analyzed included postoperative Rowe score, visual analog scale pain score, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and rates of recurrent instability and other complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 articles (level III evidence in 3 and level II in 1) were included from an initial 804 abstracts. The study population consisted of a total of 379 patients, of whom 194 underwent BRR and 185 underwent the Latarjet procedure. There were no unacceptable differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. For the rate of recurrent instability, both groups had comparable risk ratios (RRs) (N = 379; RR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.41). The risk of other complications was significantly increased with the Latarjet procedure (by about 7 times) relative to the the BRR procedure (N = 379; RR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2-27). Both groups had comparable postoperative Rowe scores (n = 190; mean difference [MD], -0.9; 95% CI, -3.45 to 1.7) and visual analog scale pain scores (n = 347; MD, -0.2; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.2). Moreover, both groups had comparable postoperative external rotation ROM (MD, -1.7°; 95% CI, -9.4° to 6°) and internal rotation ROM (MD, 1.95°; 95% CI, -5.35° to 9.25°). There was substantial heterogeneity in the effect of both procedures on postoperative pain and ROM (external rotation and internal rotation).

CONCLUSION

Both the BRR and Latarjet procedures are effective for the management of engaging HSLs with subcritical GBL and give comparable clinical outcomes. However, given the fewer overall postoperative complications, remplissage may be safer. The results of the included studies were adequately consistent for most analyzed outcomes. However, for the intervention effect on postoperative pain and ROM, there was a small body of evidence, limiting the strength of the reported conclusions.

Arthroscopic Remplissage for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Studies

PURPOSE

To examine the clinical outcomes and biomechanical data supporting the use of the remplissage procedure.

METHODS

A query of the Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from 2000 to 2017. Data were extracted from included studies for a qualitative review of both clinical and biomechanical outcomes.

RESULTS

After review, 18 clinical and 10 biomechanical studies were available for analysis; 10 of 18 clinical studies (55.6%) were Level IV evidence. Within the clinical studies, there were 567 patients (570 shoulders) evaluated with follow-up ranging from 6 to 180 months. Overall, 5.8% of shoulders (33 of 570) displayed recurrent instability after arthroscopic remplissage. Of the shoulders with recurrent instability, 42.4% of shoulders (14 of 33) underwent further surgical management. In all studies evaluating pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, the arthroscopic remplissage procedure improved patient-reported outcomes a statistically significant amount postoperatively. Within individual clinical studies, external rotation with the arm in neutral was the most consistently limited range of motion (ROM) parameter, with deficits compared with the contralateral shoulder ranging from 9° to 14°. Biomechanical analysis appeared to corroborate the clinical results, although significant conclusions were limited by heterogeneity of reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic remplissage performed in conjunction with arthroscopic Bankart repair is a safe and effective procedure for patients with engaging Hill-Sachs lesions and subcritical glenoid bone loss. Although both the included clinical and biomechanical studies would suggest minimal changes in glenohumeral ROM following the remplissage procedure, strong conclusions are limited by the heterogeneity in reporting ROM data and lack of comparative studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review.