High Rate of Return to Sports and Low Recurrences With the Latarjet Procedure in High-Risk Competitive Athletes With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20

Management of anterior shoulder instability in the contact athlete: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Anterior shoulder instability (ASI) is a common occurrence in the athletic population with specific management challenges in contact athletes due to the high activity demand and repetitive trauma during sport. This study aims to provide a narrative review of the current literature on ASI in contact athletes, with an emphasis on pathophysiology, mechanisms of injury, clinical presentation, diagnostic strategies, treatment options, including in-season management, and outcomes.

Methods

A narrative review of the current literature on ASI in contact athletes was conducted, including key studies on the management and outcomes of conservative and surgical interventions.

Key Content and Findings

ASI typically occurs from abduction and external rotation forces. Diagnosis relies on clinical assessment and imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography), to evaluate soft tissue and bony injuries. Non-operative management is associated with high recurrence rates in contact athletes. Surgical options include arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) with or without remplissage, open Bankart repair (OBR), or bone block procedure such as Latarjet procedure or distal tibia allograft. All of which have been shown to decrease risk of recurrence and have a high rate of return to sport. The choice of procedure depends on the extent of soft tissue and bony involvement and the athlete's individual demands. ABR with glenoid bone loss >13.5% have high recurrence rates, therefore, additional procedures such as remplissage or bone block procedures should be considered.

Conclusions

ASI in the contact athlete is a common and challenging injury to manage. Surgical intervention provides superior outcomes in terms of stability and recurrence prevention compared to non-operative management of ASI in the contact athlete. Patient-specific considerations including level of sport, patient goals, and timing of season are considerations for treatment. Labral injury with <13.5% of glenoid bone loss and on-track Hill-Sachs lesion ABR is recommended, labral injury with 13.5-20% of glenoid bone loss with off-track Hill-Sachs lesion ABR with remplissage or OBR with capsule shift is recommended, and if >20% then bone block procedure is recommended.

Shoulder Instability-Return to Sports After Injury Scale Shows That Lack of Psychological Readiness Predicts Outcomes and Recurrence Following Surgical Stabilization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictive ability of psychological readiness to return to sports on clinical outcomes and recurrences in athletes who return to sports following shoulder instability surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent shoulder instability surgery between September 2020 and October 2021 (arthroscopic Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped according to the achievement of psychological readiness to return to play using the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sports After Injury (SIRSI) scale (≥55 points) measured at 6 months following surgery. Recurrences were measured and functional outcomes were evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS), Rowe, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS and Rowe scores was calculated using the distribution-based method of a half standard deviation of the delta (difference between postoperative and preoperative scores). The patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the VAS scale was set at 2.5 based on previous literature. To evaluate the predictive ability of SIRSI, a regression model analysis and a receiver operating characteristic curve were used.

RESULTS

A total of 108 who achieved psychological readiness (PSR) and 41 who did not achieve PSR met the study criteria. PSR achieved significantly higher percentages of MCID and PASS thresholds for VAS than non-PSR (MCID: 68.5% vs 48.7%, P = .026; PASS: 92.5% vs 58.5%, P < .001). However, there were no differences in the percentage of patients achieving MCID for the Rowe score between groups (98.1% vs 100%, P = .999). The only strongest independent predictor of postoperative outcomes was being psychologically ready to return to sports. The SIRSI scale had an excellent predictive ability for recurrences (area under curve, 0.745; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.8). Of those who sustained a recurrence, 20% were not psychologically ready compared to 4.3% who were (P = .002). A power analysis was not conducted for this study.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIRSI scale is associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and recurrences in patients who returned to sports following shoulder instability surgery. Patients who were not psychologically ready following shoulder instability surgery had worse clinical outcomes with fewer patients achieving clinically significant outcomes (PASS and MCID) for pain and a higher risk of recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Most Athletes Who Fail to Return to Sport After Latarjet Procedure Cite Psychological Factors: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To identify the return-to-sport (RTS) rate in athletes undergoing a Latarjet procedure while outlining the specific reasons for failure to RTS.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science). Studies in peer-reviewed journals with Latarjet procedures performed on athletes that reported rates and reasons for failure to RTS were included. Excluded studies were those that reported solely on nonathletes, non-Latarjet surgery, and missing rates of and reasons for failure to RTS. Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

After review of 3,617 articles, a total of 18 studies with 1,066 patients met the inclusion criteria. The level of evidence for included studies ranged from II to IV. Rates of not returning to sports (NRTS) ranged from 3.4% to 35.3%. More studies cited shoulder-unrelated reasons than shoulder-related reasons for why athletes failed to RTS. Ten (55.5%) studies, making up 656 (61.5%) patients, reported that shoulder-unrelated reasons were accountable for more than 50% of NRTS. Only 3 (16.7%) studies reported 100% NRTS because of shoulder-related reasons, which include fear of reinjury and psychological factors. Study heterogeneity was found to be moderate (I2 = 73.4%; 95% confidence interval 57.5-83.3; P < .001) and study quality was found to be satisfactory (mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score 12.1 for noncomparative and 20.5 for comparative studies).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this systematic review, the rate of NRTS after Latarjet ranged from 3.4% to 35.3% across 18 studies, with the majority of studies citing nonshoulder-related reasons such as fear or reinjury or psychological factors as the major deterrent for returning to sports.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of case series.

The Latarjet Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability in the Contact Athlete

In young athletes, anterior shoulder instability is a prevalent condition. Because of high-energy traumas, contact athletes often suffer recurrent instability, bone loss and postoperative recurrences. Patients younger than 20 years, symptomatic for more than 6 months, with ≥ 2 dislocations, with off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, Instability Severity Index Score > 3, and Glenoid Track Instability Management Score > 3 are at higher risk of failure. In cases of multiple dislocations with critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss, notably in collision and contact athletes, the Latarjet procedure is widely recognized as the treatment of choice.

Analysis of reasons for failure to return to sport after Latarjet surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI) scores in athletes who underwent open Latarjet surgery, determine the reasons why athletes failed to return to play (RTP) after Latarjet surgery, and compare SIRSI scores of those who did vs. did not RTP.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, the PubMed, SportDiscus, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were queried to identify studies evaluating return to sport after Latarjet surgery. Study quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Studies were included if RTP after Latarjet surgery and a psychological factor were evaluated, with potential psychological factors including readiness to RTP and reasons for failure to RTP.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies, 10 of level III evidence and 4 of level IV evidence, with 1034 patients were included. A total of 978 athletes were eligible to RTP. Of these, 792 (79%) successfully returned to play and 447 (56.4%) returned to play at their previous level of play. Mean RTP time was 6.2 months. Postoperative SIRSI scores averaged 71.2 ± 8.8 at a mean of 21 months' follow-up. Postoperative SIRSI scores for those able to RTP was 73.2, whereas athletes unable to RTP scored an average of 41.5. Mean postoperative SIRSI scores for those in contact sports was 71.4, whereas those in noncontact sports was 86.5. There were 31 athletes with a documented reason why they did not RTP, with postoperative shoulder injury being the most common reason (54.5%). Fear of reinjury and feeling "not psychologically confident" each represented 6.5% of the total.

CONCLUSION

Athletes who RTP have higher average SIRSI scores than those who are unable to RTP. Of the athletes who documented why they did not RTP, more than half cited a shoulder injury as their reason for not returning to play, whereas fear of reinjury and lack of psychological readiness were other common reasons.

Clinical Significance Thresholds in Primary and Revision Latarjet Procedures With Comparable Outcome Achievements

BACKGROUND

Given the variability across populations and settings, defining the MCID and the PASS for the Rowe and ASOSS scores and patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet it is essential to have accurate benchmarks relevant to these groups when interpreting clinical results.

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain during sports, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), and Rowe scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treatment of shoulder instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and January 2020, a retrospective review of 149 patients undergoing primary Latarjet (n = 82) and revision Latarjet (n = 67) to treat shoulder instability was performed in a single institution. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The delta was defined as the change between the pre- and postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

The distribution-based MCIDs after primary Latarjet were 1.1, 7.5, and 9.6 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the MCID thresholds were 93.9%, 98.7%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds after primary Latarjet were ≤1, ≥90, and ≥85 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The percentages of patients who achieved PASS thresholds were 82.9%, 89%, and 86.5% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The distribution-based MCIDs after revision Latarjet were 0.6, 6.2, and 3.4 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved MCID thresholds were 89.3%, 100%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds were ≤3, ≥87, and ≥86 after revision Latarjet for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the PASS thresholds were 88%, 88%, and 91% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study identified useful values for the MCID and PASS thresholds in VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treating shoulder instability. Most patients achieved MCID and PASS benchmarks, indicating successful primary and revision Latarjet procedure outcomes. These metrics can serve as valuable parameters when analyzing parameters in future studies and have the potential to enhance patient care by optimizing treatment strategies and surgical decision making.

Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure - a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up

Background

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the outcomes following an open Latarjet (OL) procedure at a minimum 15-year follow-up.

Methods

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using 3 databases. Only studies reporting outcomes of OL procedure with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up were included.

Results

Nine studies composed of 326 shoulders (78.2% males) in 313 patients were included (average age 26.9 ± 3.2 years (15-58)), with a mean follow-up of 271.9 ± 69.2 months (180-420) At a minimum 15-year follow-up, 93.5% (286 of 306) patients reported being satisfied with their OL procedure, whilst 86.8% (177 of 204) reported good/excellent outcomes at final follow-up. All nine of the included studies reported an overall rate of recurrent instability was 7.7%, with re-dislocations and subluxation at 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. The rate of surgical revision was 5.15%; 3.5% of cases were revised for recurrent instability. Instability arthropathy was reported across all included studies as 41.0%.

Conclusion

The OL procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Although high levels of radiological instability arthropathy and residual pain are found over the same period, these appear stable from a minimum of 10-year follow-up data.

Level of Evidence

IV; a systematic review of all levels of evidence.

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.

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.

Defining Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After the Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is one of the most well-established treatment options for anterior shoulder instability. However, meaningful clinical outcomes after this surgery have not been defined.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure and determine correlations between preoperative patient characteristics and achievement of MCID or PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review at 4 institutions was performed to identify patients undergoing primary open Latarjet procedure with minimum 2-year follow-up. Data collected included patient characteristics (age, sex, sports participation), radiological parameters (glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion), and 4 patient-reported outcome measures (collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively): the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The MCID and PASS for each outcome measure were calculated, and Pearson and Spearman coefficient analyses were used to identify correlations between MCID or PASS and preoperative variables (age, sex, sports participation, glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion).

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. The MCID values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were calculated to be 9.6, 12.4, 1.7, and 254.9, respectively. The PASS values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were 86.0, 82.5, 2.5, and 571.0, respectively. The rates of patients achieving MCID were 61.1% for VAS pain, 71.6% for ASES, 74.1% for SANE, and 84.2% for WOSI. The rates of achieving PASS ranged from 78.4% for WOSI to 84.0% for VAS pain. There was no correlation between any of the studied preoperative variables and the likelihood of achieving MCID or PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study defined MCID and PASS values for 4 commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure. These findings are essential for incorporating patient perspectives into the clinical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure and provide valuable parameters for the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.