Eden-Hybinette Procedure for Revision Surgery in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability in Epilepsy

Author(s):  
Ravi Mittal ◽  
Siddarth Jain
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0031
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Bernhardson ◽  
Liam A. Peebles ◽  
Colin P. Murphy ◽  
Anthony Sanchez ◽  
Robert F. LaPrade ◽  
...  

Objectives: A patient with recurrent instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remains a challenge to address. The vast majority of these result in large amounts of bone loss, resorption, and issues with retained hardware, and there is minimal literature that assesses outcomes of revision surgery following a failed Latarjet. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure. Methods: All consecutive patients who presented with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a Latarjet procedure were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had a prior Latarjet, and a history and physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, time of instability, number of prior procedures, and examination findings, as well as plain radiographic data and computed tomography (CT) scan obtained on all patients, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) grade. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsulo-labral release with subsequent repair and bony reconstruction via fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes pre- and post-revision were assessed with ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Score), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI), and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum time point 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with mean age 25.5 (range, 19 to 38), and with a mean follow-up of 47 months (range, 36 to 60) after the revision with distal tibial allograft. All patients after their Latarjet presented with recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31) or recurrent subluxation (20/31) and all patients had recurrent shoulder instability on examination. Radiographs demonstrated two fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade of 0.5 (range, I to III), and CT scan demonstrated that mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 50% to 100%). Preoperative outcomes improved for ASES (40 to 92, p=0.001), SANE (44 to 91, p=0.001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, p=0.001). There were no recurrences, and a final CT scan of the distal tibia revision demonstrated a mean 92% of DTA remained, but 98% union at the glenoid-DTA interface. Conclusion: Although the failed Latarjet with subsequent instability remains a challenge, treatment with fresh a distal tibial allograft provided substantial improvement in terms of stability and function. The vast majority of the failed Latarjet procedures had near complete resorption of the coracoid graft and many had hardware complications. Additional long-term studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this challenging revision population.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 2795-2802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Provencher ◽  
Liam A. Peebles ◽  
Zachary S. Aman ◽  
Andrew S. Bernhardson ◽  
Colin P. Murphy ◽  
...  

Background: Patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address. Complications related to this procedure include large amounts of bone loss, bone resorption, and issues with retained hardware that necessitate the need for revision surgery. Purpose: To determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure with fresh distal tibial allograft. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent revision of a failed Latarjet procedure with distal tibial allograft were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, duration of instability, number of prior surgeries, examination findings, plain radiographic and computed tomography (CT) data, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) classification. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsular release with subsequent repair, and fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes before and after revision were assessed according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with a mean age of 25.5 years (range, 19-38 years) and a mean follow-up time of 47 months (range, 36-60 months) after revision with distal tibial allograft. Before distal tibial allograft augmentation, the mean percentage glenoid bone loss was 30.3% (range, 25%-49%). All patients after their Latarjet stabilization had recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31, 35.5%) or subluxation (20/31, 64.5%), and all patients had symptoms consistent with recurrent shoulder instability upon physical examination. Radiographs demonstrated 2 fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade was 0.5 (range, 0-3), and CT scans revealed that a mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 37%-100%). Patient-reported outcome scores improved significantly pre- to postoperatively for ASES (40 to 92, P = .001), SANE (44 to 91, P = .001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, P = .001). There were no cases of recurrence, and a final CT scan of the distal tibial revision demonstrated a complete union at the glenoid–distal tibial allograft interface in 92% of patients. Conclusion: The majority of the failed Latarjet procedures included in this study had near-complete resorption of the coracoid graft and hardware complications. At a minimum follow-up time of 36 months, patients who underwent revision treatment for a failed Latarjet procedure with a fresh distal tibial allograft demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and near-complete osseous union at the glenoid-allograft interface. Although patients evaluated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address, fresh distal tibial allograft augmentation is a viable and highly effective revision procedure to treat this patient population.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712110018
Author(s):  
Emilio Calvo ◽  
Gonzalo Luengo ◽  
Diana Morcillo ◽  
Antonio M. Foruria ◽  
María Valencia

Background: Limited evidence is available regarding the recommended technique of revision surgery for recurrent shoulder instability. Only 1 previous study has compared the results of soft tissue repair and the Latarjet technique in patients with persistent shoulder instability after primary surgical stabilization. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate the results of revision surgery in patients with previous surgical stabilization failure and subcritical glenoid bone defects, comparing repeated Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet technique. The hypothesis was that Latarjet would be superior to soft tissue procedures in terms of objective and subjective functional scores, recurrence rates, and range of movement. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 45 patients (mean age, 29.1 ± 8.9 years) with subcritical bone loss (<15% of articular surface) who had undergone revision anterior shoulder instability repair after failed Bankart repair. Of these, 17 patients had arthroscopic Bankart repair and 28 had arthroscopic Latarjet surgery. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with the Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Subluxation or dislocation episodes were considered failures. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups in age, sex, sporting activity, preoperative Rowe score, or the presence of hyperlaxity or bony lesions. At revision arthroscopy, 20 shoulders showed a persistent Bankart lesion, 13 a medially healed labrum, and 6 a bony Bankart. In 6 patients, no abnormalities were present that could explain postoperative recurrence. In the Bankart repair group, 7 patients underwent isolated Bankart procedures; in the remaining 10 cases, a capsular shift was added. No significant differences were found between the Bankart and Latarjet groups in outcome scores, recurrence rate (11.8% vs 17.9%, respectively), or postoperative athletic activity level. The mean loss of passive external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction was similar between groups. Conclusion: Arthroscopic Latarjet did not lead to superior results compared with repeated Bankart repair in patients with subcritical glenoid bone loss and recurrent anterior shoulder instability after Bankart repair.


2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110182
Author(s):  
Craig R. Bottoni ◽  
John D. Johnson ◽  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Sarah G. Raybin ◽  
James S. Shaha ◽  
...  

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated equivalent short-term results when comparing arthroscopic versus open anterior shoulder stabilization. However, none have evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of patients after arthroscopic or open anterior shoulder stabilization, with inclusion of an assessment of preoperative glenoid tracking. Purpose: To compare long-term clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability randomized to open and arthroscopic stabilization groups. Additionally, preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were used to assess whether the shoulders were “on-track” or “off-track” to ascertain a prediction of increased failure risk. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A consecutive series of 64 patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability were randomized to receive either arthroscopic or open stabilization by a single surgeon. Follow-up assessments were performed at minimum 15-year follow-up using established postoperative evaluations. Clinical failure was defined as any recurrent dislocation postoperatively or subjective instability. Preoperative MRI scans were obtained to calculate the glenoid track and designate shoulders as on-track or off-track. These results were then correlated with the patients’ clinical results at their latest follow-up. Results: Of 64 patients, 60 (28 arthroscopic and 32 open) were contacted or examined for follow-up (range, 15-17 years). The mean age at the time of surgery was 25 years (range, 19-42 years), while the mean age at the time of this assessment was 40 years (range, 34-57 years). The rates of arthroscopic and open long-term failure were 14.3% (4/28) and 12.5% (4/32), respectively. There were no differences in subjective shoulder outcome scores between the treatment groups. Of the 56 shoulders, with available MRI studies, 8 (14.3%) were determined to be off-track. Of these 8 shoulders, there were 2 surgical failures (25.0%; 1 treated arthroscopically, 1 treated open). In the on-track group, 6 of 48 had failed surgery (12.5%; 3 open, 3 arthroscopic [ P = .280]). Conclusion: Long-term clinical outcomes were comparable at 15 years postoperatively between the arthroscopic and open stabilization groups. The presence of an off-track lesion may be associated with a higher rate of recurrent instability in both cohorts at long-term follow-up; however, this study was underpowered to verify this situation.


2013 ◽  
pp. 181-199
Author(s):  
Mary K. Mulcahey ◽  
John W. McNeil ◽  
Matthew T. Provencher

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document