Latarjet After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in Twice the Rate of Recurrent Instability Compared With Primary Latarjet

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair

BACKGROUND

This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB).

METHODS

LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629).

CONCLUSIONS

When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.

Clinical outcomes, return to sport, and complications after isolated primary Latarjet versus Latarjet as a revision procedure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this review was to compare clinical outcomes, return to sport (RTS), and complications in comparative studies examining patients undergoing primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the revision setting following soft tissue stabilization.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of level I to III human clinical studies reporting clinical outcomes (Visual Analogue Pain Scale [VAS]), RTS metrics, and complications in patients following primary versus revision Latarjet procedures. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies, consisting of 1170 patients (n=1179 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.4 years, consisting of 91.9% males (n=1083/1179 shoulders), were identified. Mean final follow-up was 46.4 (mean range, 7.3-72.2) months. A total of 748 primary and 431 revision Latarjet procedures were analyzed. Complications were reported in 9.6% (range, 0%-24.2%) of patients undergoing primary and 20.2% (range, 0%-40.7%) in patients undergoing revision procedures (p=0.22). There was no significant difference in the RTS rate between patients undergoing primary (87.3%; range, 83.8%-92.1%) versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (78.9%; range, 60%-100%) (p=0.08). Moreover, no significant difference in postoperative VAS was observed in patients undergoing primary versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (p=0.21). Recurrent shoulder subluxation was significantly greater in patients undergoing revision (12.0%; n=31/259 shoulders; range, 0%-20.7%) compared to primary procedures (3.3%; n=27/511 shoulders; range, 0%-9%) (p<0.001).

DISCUSSION

Patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet demonstrated overall similar rates of complications and return to sport. Of clinical importance, Latarjet as a revision procedure possessed a risk of recurrent subluxation 3.6 times higher than primary Latarjet. While effective, patients should be counseled regarding the differing prognosis between Latarjet as a primary or revision procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does previous arthroscopic Bankart repair influence coracoid graft osteolysis in Latarjet procedure? A case-control study with computed tomography scan data

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is commonly performed in the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability and is also indicated as a salvage procedure for recurrence after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Although this procedure has shown success, there has been an increased awareness of complications in recent studies, especially graft osteolysis. Most relevant research has focused on the pathophysiology, incidence, or location of graft osteolysis or the risk factors for graft osteolysis; however, the data are limited to primary Latarjet procedures. This study aimed to investigate the effect of previous arthroscopic Bankart repair surgery on coracoid bone graft osteolysis in the Latarjet procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study analyzed data from patients who underwent primary Latarjet procedures or revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Clinical outcome measures included range of motion, the Subjective Shoulder Value, and the Rowe score. Volumetric analysis of each transferred coracoid graft was performed using early postoperative and late postoperative computed tomography scan data, and the amount of graft osteolysis was then calculated as the percentage of volume reduction of each graft.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study, with 24 patients in the primary Latarjet group (group I) and 8 patients in the revision Latarjet group (group II). The mean age of the patients was 32.5 ± 7.7 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 52.1 ± 8.9 months. Both study groups showed significant improvement in the Subjective Shoulder Value compared with baseline (P < .05). Comparison of postoperative clinical outcome measures showed no significant difference in any outcome parameter between the 2 study groups (P > .05). No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period. A positive apprehension sign was present in 6 patients (25%) in group I and 4 patients (50%) in group II (P > .05). Analysis of radiologic data revealed that all patients underwent some degree of graft osteolysis, with varying osteolysis ratios between 12% and 98%. The mean osteolysis ratio of the coracoid graft was 67.3% ± 22.6% in group I and 69.4% ± 25.6% in group II, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that a considerable amount of coracoid graft osteolysis is observed after both primary Latarjet procedures and revision Latarjet procedures following failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair did not seem to have a significant influence on the amount of graft osteolysis, and both primary and revision Latarjet procedures showed satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in female patients: A case series and matched-pair analysis

Background

The objective of this study was to retrospectively report on the outcomes of female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure.

Methods

Female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure with minimum 1 year follow-up were identified and contacted to obtain Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and return to sport (RTS) data. Eligible females were then matched 1:1 with a male counterpart based on laterality and age (± 3 years), and outcomes compared.

Results

A total of 20 female patients with a mean follow-up of 73.8 months reported postoperative NPRS and SSV scores of 2.2  ±  2.3 and 69.3  ±  22.0, respectively. Of the nine athletes, 3 (33%) reported a successful RTS at a mean of 9 months. Four patients (20.0%) required reoperation at a mean of 27.1 months. The matched analysis demonstrated similar NPRS scores between male and female patients and a trend towards lower SSV scores and rates of RTS.

Conclusion

At mid-term follow-up female patients reported pain levels similar to female-specific literature reports, but overall low subjective shoulder function and RTS. Compared to propensity-matched males, females reported similar levels of pain, lower shoulder function, and lower rates of RTS, however, differences did not reach statistical significance.

Level of Evidence

IV, retrospective case series.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included.

RESULTS

A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

Isolated Primary Latarjet Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in High Rates of Graft Resorption and Glenohumeral Degenerative Changes With Low Rates of Failure at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications after an isolated primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in accordance with 2020 PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed databases were queried from database inception through September 2022. The literature search was limited to human clinical studies reporting on postoperative complications and adverse events after a primary Latarjet procedure with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, consisting of 1,797 patients (n = 1,816 shoulders), with a mean age of 24 years were identified. The overall postoperative complication rate ranged from 0% to 25.7%, with the most common complication being persistent shoulder pain (range: 0%-25.7%). Radiological changes included graft resorption (range: 7.5%-100%) and glenohumeral degenerative changes (range: 0%-52.5%). Recurrent instability following surgery was documented in 0% to 35% of shoulders, while the incidence of bone block fractures ranged from 0% to 6% of cases. Postoperative nonunion, infection, and hematomas had a reported incidence rate ranging from 0% to 16.7%, 0% to 2.6%, and 0% to 4.4%, respectively. Overall, 0% to 7.5% of surgeries were reported failures, and 0% to 11.1% of shoulders required reoperation, with a revision rate ranging from 0% to 7.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of complications following the primary Latarjet procedure for shoulder instability was variable, ranging from 0% to 25.7%. High rates of graft resorption, degenerative changes, and nonunion were present while failure and revision rates remained low at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The role of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be established.

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, recurrences, and complication rates of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet as a primary procedure.

DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and underwent arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization between 2009 and 2018. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on whether Latarjet was performed after a previous instability surgery (revision) or as a primary surgery (primary). Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome (CMSO) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) were assessed pre- and postoperatively with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. In addition, pre- and postoperative levels of sports activity, dislocations, subluxations, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (n = 62 revision; n = 35 primary), with a mean age of 31.0 ± 8.8 and 29.4 ± 7.6 years old in the revision and primary Latajet group, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up in the revision group was 32 months (24-53) and 35.5 months (27.7-42.2) in the primary Latarjet group. No significant differences between groups were observed in Rowe score (revision = 91.4, primary = 94.1; P = .223), CMSO score (revision = 90.7, primary = 94; P = .105), and SANE (revision = 85.8, primary = 87.3; P = .683) postoperatively. However, the postoperative difference in the WOSI score between the revision and primary Latarjet groups was nearly significant (510 ± 334 vs 403 ± 343, respectively; P = .05). Four (6.4%) postoperative dislocations were reported in the revision and 1 (2.8%) in the primary Latarjet group (P = .14). Patients in the revision group had a lower return to the previous level of sports participation (P = .008) and decreased external rotation with the arm by the side compared with the primary Latarjet group (P = .000).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery is a reasonable surgical option in failed Bankart repair cases. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. However, a decreased level of postoperative sports participation and external rotation with the arm by the side can be expected.

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.

Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Latarjet has become an increasingly popular treatment option for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. With the reported complication rates for primary Latarjet surgery, there are concerns about the complications of Latarjet as a revision surgery. It remains unclear if poor results after previous surgical management can be improved with revision Latarjet as well as with primary Latarjet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed on 3 databases for studies that compared primary Latarjet with revision Latarjet used after failed arthroscopic stabilization or failed free bone block procedures. From the included studies, demographic data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included for data analysis. Compared with the primary Latarjet cohort, revision Latarjet cohorts had a higher infection rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; RR 0.46, P = .039). The primary Latarjet group showed a greater rate of return to sport (89.7% vs. 80.5%; RR 1.12, P = .41) and less subjective feeling of instability (12.6% vs. 20.9%; RR 0.60, P = .085) compared with the revision Latarjet group; however, this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in complication rates, reoperation, recurrence, and range of motion between primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet groups. Clinical outcome scores such as visual analog scale and Rowe scores were not significantly different between the cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment.

Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: current concepts and surgical techniques

The Latarjet procedure is a surgical procedure that can effectively restore glenohumeral stability, especially in patients with anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. Many studies have shown comparable clinical outcomes between patients undergoing the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and those undergoing traditional open methods or other glenohumeral joint stabilization procedures. However, the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is a challenging technique due to the unfamiliar portal placements, proximity of neurovascular structures, and serious postoperative complications. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure has not yet been widely applied, and a clear understanding of the anatomical structure and the precise methods is required prior to operation performance. Satisfactory clinical outcomes can be achieved by thorough preoperative planning and proper implant fixation methods.

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.

The Glenoid Track Paradigm Does Not Reliably Affect Military Surgeons’ Approach to Managing Shoulder Instability

Purpose

To report the frequencies of surgical stabilization procedures performed by military shoulder surgeons and to use decision tree analysis to describe how bipolar bone loss affects surgeons' decision to perform arthroscopic versus open stabilization procedures.

Methods

The Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network (MOTION) database was queried for anterior shoulder stabilization procedures from 2016 to 2021. A nonparametric decision tree analysis was used to generate a framework for classifying surgeon decision making based on specified injury characteristics (labral tear location, glenoid bone loss [GBL], Hill-Sachs lesion [HSL] size, and on-track vs off-track HSL).

Results

A total of 525 procedures were included in the final analysis, with a mean patient age of 25.9 ± 7.2 years and a mean GBL percentage of 3.6% ± 6.8%. HSLs were described based on size as absent (n = 354), mild (n = 129), moderate (n = 40), and severe (n = 2) and as on-track versus off-track in 223 cases, with 17% (n = 38) characterized as off-track. Arthroscopic labral repair (n = 428, 82%) was the most common procedure, whereas open repair (n = 10, 1.9%) and glenoid augmentation (n = 44, 8.4%) were performed infrequently. Decision tree analysis identified a GBL threshold of 17% or greater that resulted in an 89% probability of glenoid augmentation. Shoulders with GBL less than 17% combined with a mild or absent HSL had a 95% probability of an isolated arthroscopic labral repair, whereas a moderate or severe HSL resulted in a 79% probability of arthroscopic repair with remplissage. The presence of an off-track HSL did not contribute to the decision-making process as defined by the algorithm and data available.

Conclusions

Among military shoulder surgeons, GBL of 17% or greater is predictive of a glenoid augmentation procedure whereas HSL size is predictive of remplissage for GBL less than 17%. However, the on-track/off-track paradigm does not appear to affect military surgeons' decision making.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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.

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Purpose

To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR).

Methods

Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon’s practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05.

Results

The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Editorial Commentary: Better Stability Found With Primary Latarjet Compared With Those Performed After a Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: Should We Be Doing More Primary Latarjet Procedures?

Traditionally, most orthopaedic surgeons use glenoid bone loss of >15% to 20% glenoid width as the cut off for arthroscopic Bankart repairs. More than that amount of bone loss suggests the need to augment the glenoid with bone-most often performed with a Latarjet coracoid transfer. Primary Latarjet procedures are more widely used in Europe compared with the United States for the treatment of shoulder instability-even with less bone loss than 15%. Better results regarding stability are found using primary Latarjet compared with those in revision Latarjet procedures performed after an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has failed. Perhaps this should lead us to doing primary Latarjet procedures, with a lower threshold of bone loss.