Free Bone Grafting Improves Clinical Outcomes in Anterior Shoulder Instability with Bone Defect: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies with a Minimum of 1-Year Follow-up

Background: Few studies have compared clinical outcomes between the traditional Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability and the congruent arc modification to the Latarjet procedure. Purpose: To systematically evaluate the literature for the incidence of recurrent instability, clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, and complications for the traditional Latarjet procedure and the congruent arc modification and to compare results of each search. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies published between January 1990 and October 2020 that described clinical outcomes of the traditional Latarjet and the congruent arc modification with a follow-up range of 2 to 10 years. The difference in surgical technique was analyzed using a chi-square test for categorical variables, while continuous variables were evaluated using a Student t test. Results: In total, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria: 20 studies describing the traditional Latarjet procedure in 1412 shoulders, and 6 studies describing the congruent arc modification in 289 shoulders. No difference between procedures was found regarding patient age at surgery, follow-up time, Rowe or postoperative visual analog scores, early or late complications, return-to-sport timing, or incidence of improper graft placement or graft fracture. A significantly greater proportion of male patients underwent glenoid augmentation using the congruent arc modification versus traditional Latarjet ( P < .001). When comparing outcomes, the traditional Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower incidence of fibrous union or nonunion ( P = .047) and broken, loose, or improperly placed screws ( P < .001), and the congruent arc modification demonstrated improved outcomes with regard to overall return to sport ( P < .001), return to sport at the same level ( P < .001), incidence of subluxation ( P = .003) or positive apprehension ( P = .002), and revision surgery for recurrent instability ( P = .027). Conclusion: Outcomes after the congruent arc modification proved at least equivalent to the traditional Latarjet procedure in terms of recurrent instability and return to sport, although early and late complications were equivalent. The congruent arc procedure may be an acceptable alternative to traditional Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are needed.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Capsulolabral Repair for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability With Moderate Glenoid Bone Defects: A Comparison With Primary Surgery

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/23259671211059814 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 232596712110598

Author(s):

Young Dae Jeon ◽

Hyong Suk Kim ◽

Sung-Min Rhee ◽

Myeong Gon Jeong ◽

Joo Han Oh

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Bone Defect ◽

Shoulder Instability ◽

External Rotation ◽

Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Primary Surgery ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Primary Groups

Background: The optimal revision surgery for failed primary arthroscopic capsulolabral repair (ACR) has yet to be determined. Revision ACR has shown promising results. Purpose: To compare the functional, strength, and radiological outcomes of revision ACR and primary ACR for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between March 2007 and April 2017, a total of 85 patients underwent ACR (revision: n = 23; primary: n = 62). Functional outcome scores and positive apprehension signs were evaluated preoperatively, at 1 year, and then annually. Isokinetic internal and external rotation strengths were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 year after surgery. Results: The mean follow-up was 36.5 ± 10.2 months (range, 24-105 months). There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups in the glenoid bone defect size at the time of surgery (17.3% ± 4.8% vs 15.4% ± 5.1%, respectively; P = .197). At the final follow-up, no significant differences were found in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (97.6 ± 3.1 vs 98.0 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .573), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score (636.7 ± 278.1 vs 551.1 ± 305.4, respectively; P = .584), or patients with a positive apprehension sign (17.4% [4/23] vs 11.3% [7/62], respectively; P = .479) between the revision and primary groups. There was no significant difference between the revision and primary groups for returning to sports at the same preoperative level (65.2% vs 80.6%, respectively; P = .136) and anatomic healing failure at 1 year after surgery (13.0% vs 3.2%, respectively; P = .120). Both groups recovered external rotation strength at 1 year after surgery (vs before surgery), although the strength was weaker than in the uninvolved shoulder. In the revision group, a larger glenoid bone defect was significantly related to a positive apprehension sign (22.0% ± 3.8%) vs a negative apprehension sign (16.0% ± 3.2%; cutoff = 20.5%; P = .003). Conclusion: In patients with moderate glenoid bone defect sizes (10%-25%), clinical outcomes after revision ACR were comparable to those after primary ACR. However, significant glenoid bone loss was related to a positive remaining apprehension sign in the revision group. Surgeons should consider these findings when selecting their revision strategy for patients with failed anterior shoulder stabilization.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of the Latarjet Procedure Versus Free Bone Block Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546520925833 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 036354652092583

Author(s):

Ron Gilat ◽

Eric D. Haunschild ◽

Ophelie Z. Lavoie-Gagne ◽

Tracy M. Tauro ◽

Derrick M. Knapik ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Shoulder Instability ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽

Bone Block ◽

Return To Sports ◽

Latarjet Procedure ◽

Shoulder Stabilization ◽

Recurrent Instability

Background: Free bone block (FBB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability have been proposed as an alternative to or bail-out for the Latarjet procedure. However, studies comparing the outcomes of these treatment modalities are limited. Purpose: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior shoulder stabilization with a Latarjet or FBB procedure. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to 2019 for human-participants studies published in the English language. The search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement including studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients undergoing Latarjet or FBB procedures for anterior shoulder instability with minimum 2-year follow-up. Case reports and technique articles were excluded. Data were synthesized, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the proportions of recurrent instability, other complications, progression of osteoarthritis, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) improvement. Results: A total of 2007 studies were screened; of these, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported outcomes on a total of 4540 shoulders, of which 3917 were treated with a Latarjet procedure and 623 were treated with an FBB stabilization procedure. Weighted mean follow-up was 75.8 months (range, 24-420 months) for the Latarjet group and 92.3 months (range, 24-444 months) for the FBB group. No significant differences were found between the Latarjet and the FBB groups in the overall random pooled summary estimate of the rate of recurrent instability (5% vs 3%, respectively; P = .09), other complications (4% vs 5%, respectively; P = .892), progression of osteoarthritis (12% vs 4%, respectively; P = .077), and return to sports (73% vs 88%; respectively, P = .066). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved after both Latarjet and FBB, with a significantly greater increase after FBB procedures (10.44 for Latarjet vs 32.86 for FBB; P = .006). Other recorded PRO scores improved in all studies, with no significant difference between groups. Conclusion: Current evidence supports the safety and efficacy of both the Latarjet and FBB procedures for anterior shoulder stabilization in the presence of glenoid bone loss. We found no significant differences between the procedures in rates of recurrent instability, other complications, osteoarthritis progression, and return to sports. Significant improvement in PROs was demonstrated for both groups. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies on outcomes of the Latarjet and FBB procedures, warranting future high-quality, comparative studies.

Download Full-text

Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 3275 Shoulders

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546520962082 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 036354652096208

Author(s):

Mohamed A. Imam ◽

Mohamed S.A. Shehata ◽

Alexander Martin ◽

Hamdy Attia ◽

Muhammad Sinokrot ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Shoulder Instability ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽

Risk Of Infection ◽

Latarjet Procedure ◽

Risk Of Recurrence ◽

Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

Background: Little consensus is available regarding the standard treatment for recurrent anterior instability of the shoulder. Typically, treatment selection has been based on training and tradition rather than the available evidence. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the Latarjet procedure in the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with emphasis on follow-up time. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Ovid, and Web of Science up to January 2018 and included studies that compared arthroscopic Bankart versus Latarjet for treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Continuous data, such as operative time and patient-reported outcomes, were pooled as mean differences (MDs), whereas dichotomous data, such as recurrence, revision, redislocation, arthropathy, infection, and hematoma, were pooled as risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. Results: Pooling data from 7 cohort studies (3275 patients) showed that arthroscopic Bankart was associated with a higher risk of redislocation (RR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.48-5.06; P = .03), a higher risk of recurrence (RR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.91-4.30; P < .0001), and a lower risk of infection (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P = .0002) compared with Latarjet, while the effect size did not favor arthroscopic Bankart or Latarjet in terms of Rowe score (MD, 0.22; 95% CI, –5.64 to 6.08; P = .94), revision (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.08-1.39; P = .13), and hematoma (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.03-1.19; P = .07). The effect estimate showed a pronounced advantage for Latarjet from 6 to 10 years postoperatively in terms of recurrence and redislocation (RR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.98-4.56 and RR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.51-5.38, respectively). Conclusion: Our results showed that Latarjet had less risk of recurrence and redislocation with longer follow-up time. Both procedures were comparable in terms of Rowe score, the need for revision, and postoperative hematoma formation, whereas Bankart repair was associated with a lower risk of infection.

Download Full-text

Clinical Outcomes of Shoulder Stabilization in Females With Glenoid Bone Loss

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/23259671211007525 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 232596712110075

Author(s):

Rachel M. Frank ◽

Hytham S. Salem ◽

Catherine Richardson ◽

Michael O’Brien ◽

Jon M. Newgren ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Shoulder Instability ◽

Glenoid Bone Loss ◽

Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽

Latarjet Procedure ◽

Shoulder Stabilization ◽

Simple Shoulder Test ◽

Female Patients

Background: Nearly all studies describing shoulder stabilization focus on male patients. Little is known regarding the clinical outcomes of female patients undergoing shoulder stabilization, and even less is understood about females with glenoid bone loss. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes of female patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All cases of female patients who had recurrent anterior shoulder instability with ≥15% anterior glenoid bone loss and underwent the Latarjet procedure were analyzed. Patients were evaluated after a minimum 2-year postoperative period with scores of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale. Results: Of the 22 patients who met our criteria, 5 (22.7%) were lost to follow-up, leaving 17 (77.2%) available for follow-up with a mean ± SD age of 31.7 ± 12.9 years. Among these patients, 16 (94.1%) underwent 1.6 ± 0.73 ipsilateral shoulder operations (range, 1-3) before undergoing the Latarjet procedure. Preoperative indications for surgery included recurrent instability with bone loss in all cases. After a mean follow-up of 40.2 ± 22.9 months, patients experienced significant score improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons form, Simple Shoulder Test, and pain visual analog scale ( P < .05 for all). There were 2 reoperations (11.8%). There were no cases of neurovascular injuries or other complications. Conclusion: Female patients with recurrent shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss can be successfully treated with the Latarjet procedure, with outcomes similar to those of male patients in the previously published literature. This information can be used to counsel female patients with recurrent instability with significant anterior glenoid bone loss.

Download Full-text

Arthroscopic Versus Open Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial With 15-Year Follow-up With an Assessment of the Glenoid Being “On-Track” and “Off-Track” as a Predictor of Failure

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/03635465211018212 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 036354652110182

Author(s):

Craig R. Bottoni ◽

John D. Johnson ◽

Liang Zhou ◽

Sarah G. Raybin ◽

James S. Shaha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Shoulder Instability ◽

Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽

Shoulder Stabilization ◽

Mri Studies ◽

Open Stabilization ◽

The Mean ◽

Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability

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.

Download Full-text