Results of the Latarjet coracoid bone block procedure performed by mini invasive approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 2397-2402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Lateur ◽  
Regis Pailhe ◽  
Ramsay Refaie ◽  
Billy Jeremy Chedal Bornu ◽  
Mehdi Boudissa ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. e473-e477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascal Boileau ◽  
Marie-Béatrice Hardy ◽  
Walter B. McClelland ◽  
Charles-Edouard Thélu ◽  
Daniel G. Schwartz

2016 ◽  
Vol 102 (8) ◽  
pp. 983-987 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Gendre ◽  
C.-E. Thélu ◽  
T. d’Ollonne ◽  
C. Trojani ◽  
J.-F. Gonzalez ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 513-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Barrett Payne ◽  
Matthew T. Kleiner ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Thay Q. Lee

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0000
Author(s):  
Mathieu Girard ◽  
Yoann Dalmas ◽  
Vadim Azoulay ◽  
Marie Martel ◽  
Simon Rattier ◽  
...  

Objectives: The arthroscopic bone block procedure in the treatment of anterior shoulder instabilities is now a validated technique. Nevertheless, few studies have compared the clinical results of this technique to the conventional Latarjet procedure. Therefore the objective of this study was to compare the short-term clinical results of the 2 surgical techniques. Methods: We conducted a monocentric prospective comparative study, including patients who had undergone a bone block procedure for anterior instability with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients with a surgical history concerning the affected shoulder were excluded. Evaluation was based on the measurement of mobility, the Walch-Duplay score, the Rowe score, the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), return to sports, the Net Promoter satisfaction Score, and recurrence (subluxation/luxation). Scarring was assessed by the POSAS score. Results: It was possible to follow 45 patients: arthroscopy (A) n=22, open (O) n=25. With an average follow-up of 20 months (12-30), no recurrence of instability was recorded. No significant difference was noted between groups A and O in terms of the Walch-Duplay score (85±19 vs 91±11 points; p=0.3), the Rowe score (93±14 vs 95±9 points; p=0.9), the SSV (72% vs 88%; p=0.2) and the Net Promoter Score (9.3 vs 9.7; p=0.5). At 3 months, return to sports was 11% for group A vs 48% for group O (p=0.01). This difference was no longer significant at 6 months. Loss of external rotation in group A was significantly greater at 1.5 months -58°±18° vs -41°±17° (p=0.01) and 3 months -35°±20° vs -19°±18° (p=0.01). There was no difference in the POSAS score between the 2 groups. (p= 0.9). Conclusion: With a longer recovery time for joint amplitudes and a delayed return to sports, the arthroscopic double-button fixation procedure does not seem to provide any short-term clinical benefit. Longer follow-up is required to confirm these results.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-306
Author(s):  
Ibrahim M. Nadeem ◽  
Seline Vancolen ◽  
Nolan S. Horner ◽  
Asheesh Bedi ◽  
Bashar Alolabi ◽  
...  

1992 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith S. Schauder ◽  
Hugh S. Tullos

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 263502542110067
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Hoyt ◽  
Cory A. Riccio ◽  
Lance E. LeClere ◽  
Kelly G. Kilcoyne ◽  
Jonathan F. Dickens

Background: Posterior glenoid bone loss occurs in more than two-thirds of patients with posterior glenohumeral instability, with 14% to 22% having greater than subcritical bone loss (13.5%), a marker for potential need for bony augmentation versus soft tissue-only procedures. Several techniques are described to augment either the version or volume of the glenoid surface including osteotomies, autograft transfers, and allograft tibia transfers. Indications: Arthroscopic-assisted allograft distal tibia bone block augmentation to the posterior glenoid is indicated for revision posterior instability procedures with posterior bone loss and in primary cases of posterior instability with critical bone loss. Technique Description: Arthroscopic posterior glenoid reconstruction with allograft distal tibia and posterior labral repair in the lateral position is presented. This technique uses standard instrument sets and requires no patient repositioning. The preplanned tibial bone block is prepared on a back table either prior to, or concurrently with, arthroscopic procedure. After creation of high posterior portal and standard anterior portal, a sucker-shaver and burr are used to create a perpendicular edge for apposition of the allograft tibia. The bone block is introduced through a longitudinal incision and underdelivered to the prepared surface under the liberated labrum. The articular surface of the graft and glenoid are aligned and cannulated screws are used to compress the bone block against the native glenoid. The posterior labral tissue is then mobilized over the graft and repaired to the native glenoid. Results: Arthroscopic distal tibial allograft augmentation for posterior bone loss restored stability and function in a small cohort of patients. Patients reported improved stability in the immediate postoperative course, with restoration of motion by 2 months. Push-ups, pull-ups, and return to full active duty without restrictions is allowed at 6 months postoperatively. Imaging at 3 months postoperatively has shown excellent graft healing. Discussion: The benefits of allograft tibia augmentation for posterior instability with glenoid bone loss include an anatomic joint surface restoration including articular cartilage, lack of donor site morbidity, and a minimally invasive approach. When performed arthroscopically, this technique permits concurrent posterior labral repair and anatomic reconstruction.


Author(s):  
Damien Lami ◽  
Nicolas Fauvet ◽  
Matthieu Ollivier ◽  
Jean-Noël Argenson ◽  
Jean-Charles Grillo

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santosh Venkatachalam ◽  
Phil Storey ◽  
Scott J Macinnes ◽  
Amjid Ali ◽  
David Potter

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document