Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure

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.

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.

Defining Critical Humeral Bone Loss: Inferior Craniocaudal Hill-Sachs Extension as Predictor of Recurrent Instability After Primary Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

The glenoid track concept for shoulder instability primarily describes the medial-lateral relationship between a Hill-Sachs lesion and the glenoid. However, the Hill-Sachs position in the craniocaudal dimension has not been thoroughly studied.

HYPOTHESIS

Hill-Sachs lesions with greater inferior extension are associated with increased risk of recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (without remplissage) between 2007 and 2019 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Recurrent instability was defined as recurrent dislocation or subluxation after the index procedure. The craniocaudal position of the Hill-Sachs lesion was measured against the midhumeral axis on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using either a Hill-Sachs bisecting line through the humeral head center (sagittal midpoint angle [SMA], a measure of Hill-Sachs craniocaudal position) or a line tangent to the inferior Hill-Sachs edge (lower-edge angle [LEA], a measure of Hill-Sachs caudal extension). Univariate and multivariate regression were used to determine the predictive value of both SMA and LEA for recurrent instability.

RESULTS

In total, 176 patients were included with a mean age of 20.6 years, mean follow-up of 5.9 years, and contact sport participation of 69.3%. Of these patients, 42 (23.9%) experienced recurrent instability (30 dislocations, 12 subluxations) at a mean time of 1.7 years after surgery. Recurrent instability was found to be significantly associated with LEA >90° (ie, Hill-Sachs lesions extending below the humeral head equator), with an OR of 3.29 (P = .022). SMA predicted recurrent instability to a lesser degree (OR, 2.22; P = .052). Post hoc evaluation demonstrated that LEA >90° predicted recurrent dislocations (subset of recurrent instability) with an OR of 4.80 (P = .003). LEA and SMA were found to be collinear with Hill-Sachs interval and distance to dislocation, suggesting that greater LEA and SMA proportionally reflect lesion severity in both the craniocaudal and medial-lateral dimensions.

CONCLUSION

Inferior extension of an otherwise on-track Hill-Sachs lesion is a highly predictive risk factor for recurrent instability after primary arthroscopic Bankart repair. Evaluation of Hill-Sachs extension below the humeral equator (inferior equatorial extension) on sagittal MRI is a clinically facile screening tool for higher-risk lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss. This threshold for critical humeral bone loss may inform surgical stratification for procedures such as remplissage or other approaches for at-risk on-track lesions.

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.

A comprehensive comparison and evaluation of surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior shoulder instability is a common clinical problem; however, conflicting evidence exists regarding optimal treatment algorithms. We perform a comparative analysis of stabilization techniques used for recurrent anterior shoulder instability to identify the one associated with the lowest rate of recurrent instability. We additionally explore how glenoid bone loss and osseus lesions affect recurrence rates.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies comparing surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability. Two team members independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. Each included study underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias summary tool. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of recurrent instability, which underwent a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additional analyses were performed relating to the degree of glenoid bone loss and the presence of osseous lesions.

RESULTS

Of 2699 studies screened, 52 studies with 4209 patients were included. Patients who underwent open Latarjet demonstrated the overall lowest rate of recurrent instability [log odds ratio (LOR) 1.93], whereas patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair demonstrated the highest (LOR 2.87). When glenoid bone loss was 10% to 20%, open Latarjet had significantly lower recurrent instability (P = .0016) compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. When glenoid bone loss increased from 0%-10% to 10%-20%, arthroscopic Bankart repair had a significantly increased rate of recurrence (P = .021). In the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, both open Latarjet (P = .01) and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (P = .029) had significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. Finally, regardless of procedure, the presence of a Hill-Sachs or bony Bankart lesion was associated with an increased risk of recurrent instability (r = 0.44, P = .0003, and r = 0.40, P = .006, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet has the overall lowest recurrent instability and significantly lower compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the setting of increasing glenoid bone loss. Bone loss between 0% and 10% results in similar outcomes across all procedures.

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.

Low rates of serious complications after open Latarjet procedure at short-term follow-up

PURPOSE

To report on intraoperative and short-term postoperative adverse events after open Latarjet procedure in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. These complications were classified into different grades of severity based on the treatment required and the learning curve of the procedure.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients (102 shoulders) underwent open Latarjet procedure for recurrent post-traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability between 2012 and 2020. The minimum duration of patients' follow-up was 6 months. Adverse events were classified into 3 classes based on the severity and subsequent treatment. The complications in the first 50% of all cases were compared with the latter 50% to evaluate the role of learning curve on the complication rates.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 7.2 ± 2.8 months. The patients' mean age was 26.7 ± 8.9 years and consisted of 83 (86.4%) male and 13 (13.6%) female patients. The total adverse events rate was 18.6%. Adverse events requiring no additional treatment (class 1) occurred in 6 cases (5.8%) including fibrous union (3.9%) and asymptomatic resorption of the graft (1.9%). Adverse events requiring additional or extended nonoperative management (class 2) occurred in 8 cases (7.8%), including coracoid fracture (2.9%), musculocutaneous nerve palsy (1.9%), axillary nerve palsy (0.9%), suprascapular nerve palsy (0.9%), and stiffness (0.9%). All the nerve palsies recovered without long-term sequelae. Adverse events requiring secondary operative procedures (class 3) occurred in 5 cases (4.9%), including symptomatic hardware (1.9%), medial healing of the graft (0.9%), screw loosening (0.9%), and deep infection (0.9%). The rate of adverse events in revision cases was higher than primary cases in 11.7% and 6.8%, respectively (P = .119). The complication rate was significantly higher in the first half of the surgeons' practice (14.7%) than in the second half (3.9%) (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall complication rate reported in this open Latarjet series is 18.6%; however, the rate of class 3 adverse events that required additional surgery or long-term medical treatment was only 4.9%. Revision cases had a higher rate of complications than primary cases, and the learning curve has had a significant impact on the rate of adverse events.

Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures

Introduction

There is a trend towards arthroscopically treating shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency. Despite this, there remains the option for treatment through an open technique. Multiple bone augmentation options are available for recurrent anterior shoulder instability.

Objective

To provide a systematic review of recent studies for recurrent anterior shoulder instability necessitating glenoid bone augmentation specifically through open procedures using coracoid bone or free bone blocks [iliac crest bone autograft/allograft or distal tibia allograft (DTA)].

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting open glenoid bone augmentation procedures with iliac crest, tibia, or coracoid bones within 10 years. Extracted data included study/patient characteristics, techniques, prior surgeries, prior dislocations, radiographic findings, range of motion (ROM), recurrent instability, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.

Results

92 met inclusion criteria (5693 total patients). Six were studies of iliac crest bone, four of DTA, and 84 using the coracoid bone. 29 studies measured postoperative arthritis showing no development or mild arthritis. 26 studies reported postoperative graft position. 62 studies reported ROM noting decline in internal/external rotation. 87 studies measured postoperative instability with low rates. Rowe Scores with noted improvement across 31/59 (52.5%) studies were seen. Common post operative complications included infection, hematoma, graft fracture, nerve injury, pain, and screw-related irritation.

Conclusion

Despite a trend towards arthroscopic management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency, open procedures continue to provide satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, studies have demonstrated safe and efficacious use of free bone block graft options in the primary and revision setting.

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.

Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure Does Not Lead to Loss of Clinically Significant External Rotation at 0° and 90° of Shoulder Abduction

Background

Several reports have shown that shoulder stabilizing procedures lead to postoperative external rotation (ER) deficits. However, no study on arthroscopic Latarjet procedures has investigated the effect on ER when the arm is abducted at 0° (ER₀) and 90° (ER₉₀). This study examined the relationship between the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and the subsequent effect on ER₀ and ER₉₀.

Methods

Patients who underwent an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure from December 2015 to April 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Preoperative ER₀ and ER₉₀ values were obtained from the contralateral shoulder. ER₀ and ER₉₀ values from the operative side were collected at both 3 and 6 months postoperatively. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to assess the mean preoperative and postoperative values.

Results

Forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean ER₀ for the 3- and 6-month time frames measured 44.2° and 54.6°, respectively. Mean ER₉₀ for the 3- and 6-month time frames measured 78.4° and 90.4°, respectively. Comparison to the contralateral arm at the 3-month follow-up period showed a deficit of 14.9° (P = .0001) and 17.2° (P = .0001) for ER₀ and ER₉₀, respectively. At the 6-month follow-up period, patients demonstrated an average decline in ER₀ and ER₉₀ of 4.57° (P = .063) and 5.11° (P = .008), respectively.

Conclusion

A nominal deficit in ER occurred for both ER₀ and ER₉₀ status post arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Despite loss of ER₉₀ at 6 months achieving statistical significance, the clinical impact is arguably inconsequential. Such limited loss of ER provides more information regarding bony procedures being a more definitive treatment for glenohumeral instability and the ability to restore native motion.

High rate of return to sport and excellent patient-reported outcomes after an open Latarjet procedure

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to report return to sport, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), subjective outcomes, and complications or failures in patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open Latarjet surgery performed by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons between August 2006 and November 2018 were included. Prospectively collected data were reviewed. Recurrent instability and revision surgical procedures were recorded. Subjective outcomes included return to sport and fear of reinjury or activity modification as a result of patients' instability history. PROs included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, and satisfaction. Age, sex, sports participation, pain, primary vs. revision surgery (prior failed arthroscopic or open Bankart repair), dislocation number, glenoid bone loss, glenoid track concept, and projected glenoid track were evaluated. Failure was defined as an ASES score <70, recurrent dislocation, or revision instability surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 126 shoulders (125 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 28.1 years (range, 15-57 years). Of 126 shoulders, 7 (5.5%) underwent additional procedures prior to final follow-up and were excluded from outcome analyses; failure occurred in 6 of these shoulders. Mean follow-up data at 3.7 years (range, 2-9.3 years) were attained in 86.6% of patients (103 of 119). All PROs significantly improved from preoperative baseline (ASES score, from 69.7 to 90.2; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, from 55.8 to 85.9; and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, from 28.4 to 10.5). PROs did not differ based on sex, sports participation type, dislocation with or without sports, primary vs. revision procedure, and preoperative dislocation number. No correlations existed between PROs and age, glenoid bone loss, or number of previous surgical procedures. On-track lesions (50 of 105, 47.6%) and projected on-track lesions (90 of 105, 85.7%) correlated with better patient satisfaction but not PROs. Despite not having recurrences, 63 of 99 patients (63.6%) reported activity modifications and 44 of 99 patients (44.4%) feared reinjury. These groups had statistically worse PROs, although the minimal clinically important difference was not met. Return to sport was reported by 97% of patients (86 of 89), with 74% (66 of 89) returning at the same level or slightly below the preinjury level. Revision stabilization surgery was required 6 of 126 cases (4.8%), and 6 of 103 shoulders (5.8%) had ASES scores <70.

CONCLUSION

The open Latarjet procedure led to significant improvements in all PROs, and overall, 97% of patients returned to sport. Fear of reinjury and activity modifications were common after open Latarjet procedures but did not appear to affect clinical outcomes. On-track and projected on-track measurements correlated with better patient satisfaction but not improved PROs.

Athletes with primary glenohumeral instability demonstrate lower rates of bone loss than those with recurrent instability and failed prior stabilization

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the preoperative magnetic resonance arthrography findings in patients who underwent glenohumeral stabilization with a history of primary instability, recurrent instability, or failed stabilization.

METHODS

All patients who presented with glenohumeral instability and underwent stabilization performed by a single surgeon in our institution between 2008 and 2020 were considered for inclusion in this study. The magnetic resonance arthrography findings of all patients were recorded. Imaging findings were compared between patients with primary instability, those with recurrent instability, and those with failed prior stabilization. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 871 patients were included, of whom 814 (93.5%) were male patients; the mean age was 23.1 years (range, 13-57 years). There were 200 patients with primary instability, 571 with recurrent instability, and 100 who required revision stabilization surgery, with no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. A significantly higher amount of glenoid bone loss was noted in patients with recurrent instability (43.4%) and failed prior stabilization (56%) than in those with primary instability (26.5%) (P < .0001). Additionally, a significantly higher number of Hill-Sachs lesions were observed in patients with recurrent instability (70.1%) and failed prior stabilization (89%) than in those with primary instability (67.5%) (P < .0001). We found no significant differences between the groups regarding articular cartilage damage, glenolabral articular disruption, anterior labral periosteal sleeve avulsion, humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments, or superior labral anterior-posterior tears (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting for stabilization with recurrent instability or following a failed stabilization procedure have higher rates of glenohumeral bone loss than those with primary instability. Therefore, stabilization of primary instability, particularly in high-functioning athletes with a view to preventing recurrence, may reduce the overall progression of glenohumeral bone loss and potential subsequent inferior clinical outcomes.

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

PURPOSE

To assess recurrent instability of the shoulder following open Latarjet performed as the primary stabilization procedure or as a salvage procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective, comparative cohort study was performed for a consecutive series of patients in the Military Health System who underwent open Latarjet from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. All patients were diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and had a minimum of 2 years of postoperative follow-up. Patients were categorized as either having a primary Latarjet (PL; no prior shoulder stabilization procedure) or salvage Latarjet (SL; ≥1 previous arthroscopic surgical stabilization procedures).

RESULTS

A total of 234 Latarjet procedures were performed in 234 patients. The overall recurrent instability rate was 15.8% (37/234), the overall reoperation rate was 16.7% (36/234), and the overall complication rate was 14.2% (33/234) over a mean 5.0 years of follow-up. There were 99 PL procedures and 135 SL procedures. The SL group had significantly more recurrent instability than the PL group (SL 28/135, 20.7%; PL 9/99, 9.1%; P = .0158). There was no difference in overall reoperation rates (SL 26/135, 19.3%; PL 13/99, 13.1%; P = .2140) or complication rates (SL 20/135, 14.8%; PL 13/99, 13.3%; P = .9101).

CONCLUSION

The rate of recurrent instability following the Latarjet procedure in an active, high-risk population is 15.8%. Primary Latarjet was found to have lower rates of recurrence compared with salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet as a primary operative treatment for traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Objectives

To compare the success rates of arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet procedure in the treatment of traumatic shoulder instability in young males.

Design

Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Orthopaedic departments in eight public hospitals in Finland.

Participants

122 young males, mean age 21 years (range 16–25 years) with traumatic shoulder anteroinferior instability were randomised.

Interventions

Arthroscopic Bankart (group B) or open Latarjet (group L) procedure.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the reported recurrence of instability, that is, dislocation at 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included clinical apprehension, sports activity level, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, the pain Visual Analogue Scale, the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score, the Constant Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value scores and the progression of osteoarthritic changes in plain films and MRI.

Results

91 patients were available for analyses at 2-year follow-up (drop-out rate 25%). There were 10 (21%) patients with redislocations in group B and 1 (2%) in group L, p=0.006. One (9%) patient in group B and five (56%) patients in group L returned to their previous top level of competitive sports (p=0.004) at follow-up. There was no statistically significant between group differences in any of the other secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic Bankart operation carries a significant risk for short-term postoperative redislocations compared with open Latarjet operation, in the treatment of traumatic anteroinferior instability in young males. Patients should be counselled accordingly before deciding the surgical treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01998048.

Low rate of recurrent instability following the open Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for failed prior stabilization surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to ascertain functional outcomes, recurrence rates and subsequent revision rates following the open Latarjet procedure when performed as a revision procedure.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies where the Latarjet procedure was performed as a revision procedure were included. Clinical outcomes analyzed were: (1) functional outcomes, (2) recurrent instability, (3) revisions, and (4) complications.

RESULTS

The review found 16 studies with 713 shoulders that met the inclusion criteria. 605 of the patients were male (84.9%), with an average age of 28.2 years (15-62) and follow-up of 47.7 months. The most commonly reported functional outcome measure was the Rowe score, with a weighted mean of 92.7. 86/95 patients had good-excellent outcomes (90.4%). 136/143 patients reported return to play (95.1%). 141/161 patients returned to the same level of competition (87.6%). 50 patients experienced recurrence (8.4%). Five patients experienced redislocation (0.9%) and 37 patients experienced subluxation (6.7%). There were 29 revisions (5.1%), with 12 revisions due to recurrence (2.1%). There were 68 total complications, not including recurrence (11%). The most common complications were 13 cases of nerve damage and infection respectively (2.1%). There was 17 cases of new instability arthropathy (6.5%), and 31 cases of residual pain (6.7%).

CONCLUSION

This review shows that the revision Latarjet provides excellent functional outcomes, low rates of recurrence and complications, and a high rate of return to sport among athletes. This results from study can be used to explain the expected outcomes associated with the Latarjet procedure performed as a revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%.

PURPOSE

To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level (P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (± SD) of 41 ± 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 ± 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively (P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 ± 3 points to 93.3 ± 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 ± 3 points to 93.7 ± 4 points postoperatively (P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group (P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group (P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group (P = .55).

CONCLUSION

In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.

Similar Results in Return to Sports, Recurrences, and Healing Rates Between the Classic and Congruent-Arc Latarjet for Athletes With Recurrent Glenohumeral Instability and a Failed Stabilization

PURPOSE

To compare the return-to-sport rate, functional outcomes, and complications of the "classic Latarjet" surgery with those of the "congruent arc Latarjet" surgery in athletes with recurrent glenohumeral instability and failed previous stabilization procedures.

METHODS

All the included patients were operated between May 2009 and April 2017. The inclusion criteria were athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability, a glenoid bone defect greater than 20%, at least 1 previous failed stabilization surgery operated with the classic or the congruent-arc Latarjet procedures, and a minimum 2 years of follow-up. Return to sports, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, a visual analog scale for pain, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System score were used to assess functional outcomes. Complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 135 athletes were included in the study (55 patients were operated with the classic technique and 80 with the congruent arc technique). The mean follow-up was 40.3 months (range, 24-88 months) and the mean age was 26.5 years (range, 18-45 years). Overall, 87% were able to return to sports and 92% returned at the same level. No significant difference regarding return to sports was found between the groups. No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe, visual analog scale, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System scores showed statistical improvement after operation (P < .001). No significant difference in shoulder ROM and functional scores was found between patients operated with the classic and congruent arc procedures. There were 6 recurrences (4%). There was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between groups. The bone block healed in 92% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In athletes with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and a failed previous operative repair, the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes and most athletes returned to sport at their preinjury level with a very low rate of recurrences, regardless of whether the Latarjet was performed with the classic or with the congruent arc technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.