Arthroscopic Revision Surgery for Failure of Open Latarjet Technique

Management of the failed Latarjet procedure

BACKGROUND

To analyze the causes of failure after a Latarjet procedure and to evaluate the results of revision surgery.

METHODS

Single-cohort, retrospective, observational study. Fifteen patients (13 males, mean age at revision failed Latarjet 38.9 years [range, 20-57]) with anterior glenohumeral instability who underwent a revision surgery for a failed Latarjet procedure were reviewed. Failure was defined as subluxation or dislocation. Demographic features, the reason for failure, type of lesions observed, and postoperative clinical and functional status were recorded. Functional status was assessed with the Rowe score. Subjective clinical evaluation was performed using the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV).

RESULTS

Recurrence occurred in the first year following the Latarjet procedure in 11 patients (73.3%). The causes of failure were graft avulsion in 3 cases, fracture in 1, coracoid misposition in 2 cases, graft nonunion in 1, advanced osteolysis in 4 cases, and persistence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion in 1. In 3 cases, no identifiable cause of failure but generalized severe hyperlaxity was found. Regarding revision surgery after the Latarjet procedure, 8 patients underwent an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette procedure and in 3 patients the graft was repositioned. In the remaining 4 patients, an extra-articular capsular reinforcement was performed. Regarding the latter, 1 patient suffered new dislocations and required an additional revision surgery consisting of an Eden-Hybinette procedure. All patients remained stable after the revision surgery at the latest follow-up, except 2 who reported subluxations after an arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette and an extra-articular capsular reinforcement, but no additional surgical procedure was required. Functional status after revision surgery was satisfactory, with a mean Rowe score of 78 (10-100), WOSI score of 829 (225-1425), and an SSV score of 67 points (40-90).

CONCLUSION

The causes of failure after a Latarjet procedure were poor bone graft due to mispositioning, avulsion, fracture or resorption, generalized hyperlaxity, and incomplete restoration of the glenoid track. Our study demonstrates that when the cause of failure is identified and addressed, stability is restored, and clinical and functional scores improved.

Surgical options and clinical outcomes following a failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A failed prior Latarjet procedure can be a challenging situation for both patients and surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report on the techniques and outcomes of patients undergoing revision surgery for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies which reported on surgical techniques for a failed Latarjet procedure with reporting of clinical outcomes. The search terms used were Latarjet failed. Patients were evaluated based on revision method, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), reoperation rates, recurrent instability, overall satisfaction, and return to sports and work.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (all Level IV evidence) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 293 shoulders with a mean age of 28.3 years (range, 16-55 years) at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up time was 50.4 months (range, 14.0-208.0 months) and males accounted for 78.6% of all patients. Revision procedures included open and arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette, distal tibial allograft, iliac crest autograft, osteochondral glenoid allograft, and Bankart repair and/or capsular plication. These may all be viable techniques for revision surgery for a failed Latarjet procedure. All revision procedures showed improvements in PROMs including the Visual Analogue Scale, Constant score, subjective shoulder value, Walch-Duplay, and Rowe scores. Return to sports ranged from 46.1% to 94%. Recurrent instability rates ranged from 0% to 43.8%. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 31.3%. Overall satisfaction following a revision procedure ranged from 80% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

A failed Latarjet procedure can be treated with various revision procedures such as open and arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette, distal tibial allograft, iliac crest autograft, osteochondral glenoid allograft, and Bankart repair and/or capsular plication. Overall, surgical management of the failed Latarjet results in improvements in PROMs, pain, return to sports, and decreased recurrent instability with a moderate complication rate.

Surgical management of recurrent instability following Latarjet procedure - A systematic review of salvage procedures

Background

Failed Latarjet procedures pose a surgical challenge due to complex anatomical issues. This systematic review investigates salvage techniques for recurrent instability following a Latarjet procedure.

Methods

A search was conducted on MEDLINE and PubMed Central following the methodology registered to International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Inclusion criteria focused on identifying revision procedures following a Latarjet procedure. Exclusion criteria filtered out irrelevant studies, such as those focused on Bankart procedures. After a multistage selection process, 10 eligible studies were included for data extraction.

Results

The most frequently utilized technique for salvage was variations of the Eden-Hybinette procedure. Complications associated with these salvage procedures include graft-related problems and donor site morbidity. Patients reported significant improvements in multiple patient-reported outcome scores, and multiple studies indicated high rates of return to sports activities. However, it is noteworthy that there remains an average recurrence rate of 7%.

Discussion

The review emphasizes the limited therapeutic options available largely due to shoulder anatomy alterations. Despite promising trends in patient-reported outcomes, recurrence remains possible post-salvage surgeries.

Conclusion

Addressing recurrent instability after a Latarjet procedure continues to be a unique surgical challenge. However, this systematic review highlights encouraging indications, with positive trends evident in patient-reported outcomes.

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.

Recurrence of instability after Latarjet procedure: causes, results and treatment algorithm

Latarjet modifies the anatomy of the shoulder, and subsequent revision surgery is challenging. It is mandatory to determine the cause of recurrence in order to select the best treatment option. A CT scan is needed to measure glenoid track and evaluate coracoid graft status: position, degree of consolidation, and osteolysis. Conservative management can be advocated in selected patients in whom the instability level does not interfere with the activities they wish to perform. Surgical treatment is based on the glenoid track measurement and coracoid graft suitability. The coracoid graft is considered suitable if it preserves the conjoint tendon insertion, does not show osteolysis, and is large enough to reconstruct the glenoid surface. Adding a remplissage is recommended for those cases with a coracoid graft insufficient to convert large off-track Hill-Sachs lesions into on-track. If the coracoid graft is suitable to reconstruct bone defects in terms of size and viability but is poorly positioned or avulsed, graft repositioning can be a valid option. In patients with unsuitable coracoid bone graft, free bone graft is the revision technique of choice. The size of the graft should be large enough to restore the glenoid surface and to convert any off-track Hill-Sachs lesion into on-track. There is a small group of patients in whom bone defects were properly addressed but Latarjet failed due to hyperlaxity or poor soft tissue quality. Extraarticular capsular reinforcement is suggested in this population.

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/.

Anterior and posterior glenoid bone augmentation options for shoulder instability: state of the art

Bony lesions are highly prevalent in anterior shoulder instability and can be a significant cause of failure of stabilisation procedures if they are not adequately addressed. The glenoid track concept describes the dynamic interaction between the humeral head and glenoid defects in anterior shoulder instability. It has been beneficial for understanding the role played by bone defects in this entity. As a consequence, the popularity of glenoid augmentation procedures aimed to treat anterior glenoid bone defects; reconstructing the anatomy of the glenohumeral joint has risen sharply in the last decade. Although bone defects are less common in posterior instability, posterior bone block procedures can be indicated to treat not only posterior bony lesions, attritional posterior glenoid erosion or dysplasia but also normal or retroverted glenoids to provide an extended glenoid surface to increase the glenohumeral stability. The purpose of this review was to analyse the rationale, current indications and results of surgical techniques aimed to augment the glenoid surface in patients diagnosed of either anterior or posterior instability by assessing a thorough review of modern literature. Classical techniques such as Latarjet or free bone block procedures have proven to be effective in augmenting the glenoid surface and consequently achieving adequate shoulder stability with good clinical outcomes and early return to athletic activity. Innovations in surgical techniques have permitted to perform these procedures arthroscopically. Arthroscopy provides the theoretical advantages of lower morbidity and faster recovery, as well as the identification and treatment of concomitant pathologies.

[The causes of Latarjet surgery failure and the revision surgeries]

OBJECTIVE

To review the causes of Latarjet surgery failure and various revision surgeries, in order to provide the reference for the revision of treatment options for Latarjet surgery failure.

METHODS

Literature on the causes of Latarjet surgery failure and revision surgeries was extensively reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Latarjet surgery is widely used in clinical practice for recurrent anterior dislocation of shoulder with glenoid defects, especially for the defects of more than 25%. The main reasons for its failure are ununion, bone resorption, graft dislocation, trauma, and graft fracture, etc. The revision surgeries are diverse, the standard treatment has not yet been formed. The revision surgeries include open iliac bone grafting, microscopic Eden-Hybinette surgery, soft tissue reconstruction, open or arthroscopic bone grafting, etc. The differences among the revisions are mainly reflected in grafts, complications, and their costs.

CONCLUSION

Latarjet surgery is difficult to operate and requires high technical requirements for the surgeons. It is necessary to continuously improve the surgical technology to reduce the complications related to Latarjet surgery and its revision surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.