Search

Purpose: To assess the learning curve of arthroscopic Latarjet, evaluating time of surgery, clinical outcomes, complications, revisions, and recurrence., Methods: Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures performed from 2011 to 2016 were reviewed. Satisfaction rate, subjective shoulder value, Walch-Duplay, Rowe scores, range of motion, and stability were evaluated on clinical examination. Graft position and fusion were analyzed using computed tomography. All patients were divided into 3 chronological groups., Results: Ninety patients (3 groups of 30) were available for clinical evaluation (96,8%). The mean follow-up was 23.7 months. Surgical time was significantly (P = .0028) longer in group I (mean 128 minutes, standard deviation [SD] 33.6) when compared with groups II (mean 102 minutes, SD 16.2) and III (mean 108 minutes, SD 21.8). A regression analysis and cumulative sum learning curve analysis showed the surgeon oscillated around mean operative time (112.7 minutes; SD 27.2) after 30 procedures. The number of intraoperative complications was significantly greater (P = .024) in Group I (5 cases; 17%) compared with zero in group II, and 3 (10%) in group III. All 3 cases (3.3%) of recurrence were reported in group I (P = .033). Significantly, 2 of 3 patients with recurrence had intraoperative graft complications (P = .0107). Overall patient satisfaction was evaluated as 92%, SSV 90%, Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores, respectively, 79 and 81 points. Nine revisions (10%) were reported. No significant differences were found between the results and revisions of the 3 chronological groups., Conclusions: This study confirms that the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure provides good clinical and radiologic results at short-term follow-up. The surgical time, frequency of complications, and number of hardware problems significantly decreased after the first 30 cases. As such, surgeons should be aware of the elevated potential for complications and recurrence early in the learning curve-serious intraoperative complications are important risk factors for recurrence., Level of Evidence: III. Therapeutic study: case-control study., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation in anterior shoulder instability., Methods: Ninety-three patients after primary arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation were reviewed. Satisfaction, subjective shoulder value (SSV), Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores, and range of motion and stability were evaluated on clinical examination. Computed tomography (CT) was used to analyse graft position and fusion., Results: Ninety patients (96.8%) were available for clinical and 85 for CT evaluation. The mean follow-up was 23.7 months (13-50, SD 7.1) and age at surgery was 26.2 years (16-44, SD 5.6). Intraoperative complications were reported in eight patients (8.9%) and recurrence in three (3.3%). Significantly, two out of three patients with recurrence had intraoperative graft complications (p = 0.0107). Forty-one patients (45.6%) reported the feeling of "subjective return to sport anxiety". External rotation with arm at the side was 59° (10-90°, SD 20) with 15° (0-70°, SD 17) of loss of rotation. These two factors correlated with results the most. Patient satisfaction was evaluated as 92% (40-100, SD 14) and SSV 90% (30-100, SD12). Revision rate after primary surgery was 10%. CT showed graft healing in 81 (95.3%) patients. A graft position between 2 and 5 o'clock was found in 70 (83.4%) patients and flush to the anterior glenoid rim in 34 (40.5%). Osteolysis of the superior part of the graft was found in 55 (64.7%) patients. CT evaluation showed no correlation with clinical results., Conclusion: Arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation demonstrates satisfactory results in short-term follow-up; however, intraoperative graft-related complications are a risk factor for recurrence. "Subjective return to sport anxiety" and loss of external rotation with the arm at the side are factors worsening the results. Graft position imperfections and osteolysis of the superior part of the graft reported in CT evaluation do not influence the clinical results.

Purpose and Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to evaluate and to compare the radiological parameters after arthroscopic and open Latarjet technique via evaluation of computed tomography (CT) scans. Our hypothesis was that the radiological results after arthroscopic stabilisation remained in the proximity of those results achieved after open stabilisation., Material and Methods: CT scan evaluation results of patients after primary Latarjet procedure were analysed. Patients operated on between 2006 and 2011 using an open technique composed the OPEN group and patients operated on arthroscopically between 2011 and 2013 composed the ARTHRO group. Forty-three out of 55 shoulders (78.2%) in OPEN and 62 out of 64 shoulders (95.3%) in ARTHRO were available for CT scan evaluation. The average age at surgery was 28 years in OPEN and 26 years in ARTHRO. The mean follow-up was 54.2 months in OPEN and 23.4 months in ARTHRO. CT scan evaluation was used to assess graft fusion and osteolysis. Bone block position and screw orientation were assessed in the axial and the sagittal views. The subscapularis muscle fatty infiltration was evaluated according to Goutallier classification., Results: The non-union rate was significantly higher in OPEN than in ARTHRO: 5 (11.9%) versus 1 (1.7%) (p < 0.05). The total graft osteolysis was significantly higher in the OPEN group: five cases (11.9%) versus zero in ARTHRO (p < 0.05). Graft fracture incidence was comparable in both groups: in two patients in ARTHRO (3.3%) and one case (2.4%) in the OPEN group (p > 0.05). These results should be evaluated very carefully due to significant difference in the follow-up of both groups. A significantly higher rate of partial graft osteolysis at the level of the superior screw was reported in ARTHRO with 32 patients (53.3%) versus 10 (23.8%) in OPEN (p < 0.05). In the axial view, 78.4% of patients in ARTHRO and 80.5% in OPEN had the coracoid bone block in an acceptable position (between 4 mm medially and 2 mm laterally). In the sagittal plane, the bone block was in an acceptable position between 2 and 5 o'clock in 86.7% of patients in ARTHRO and 90.2% in OPEN (p > 0.05). However, in the position between 3 and 5 o'clock there were 56.7% of the grafts in ARTHRO versus 87.8% in OPEN (p < 0.05). The screws were more parallel to the glenoid surface in ARTHRO-the angles were 12.3° for the inferior screw and 12.6° for the superior one. These angles in the OPEN group were respectively 15° and 17° (p < 0.05 and for the superior screw). There was no significant difference in the presence of fatty infiltration of the subscapularis muscle., Conclusions: Arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation showed satisfactory radiographic results, comparable to the open procedure, however the short-term follow-up can bias this evaluation. Graft healing rate was very high in the arthroscopic technique, but yet osteolysis of the superior part of the graft and more superior graft position in the sagittal view were significantly different when compared to the open technique. The screw position was slightly more parallel to the glenoid via the arthroscopic technique. We recommend both further investigation and development of the arthroscopic technique., Level of Evidence: III.

Purpose and Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to compare early clinical results after open and arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation in anterior shoulder instability. Our hypothesis was the results of arthroscopic stabilisation were comparable with the results of open procedure., Material and Methods: The clinical results of the patients after primary Latarjet procedure were analysed. Patients operated on between 2006 and 2011 using an open technique composed the OPEN group and patients operated on arthroscopically between 2011 and 2013 composed the ARTHRO group; 48 out of 55 shoulders (87%) in OPEN and 62 out of 64 shoulders (97%) in ARTHRO were available to follow-up. The average age at surgery was 28 years in OPEN and 26 years in ARTHRO. The mean follow-up was 54.2 months in OPEN and 23.4 months in ARTHRO. Intra-operative data were analysed regarding time of surgery, concomitant lesions and complications. Patient results were assessed with Walch-Duplay, Rowe, VAS scores and subjective self-evaluation of satisfaction and shoulder function. Computed tomography scan evaluation was used to assess the graft healing., Results: Average time of surgery was significantly shorter in ARTHRO than OPEN: respectively 110 and 120 minutes. The number of intra-operative complications was six (12.5%) in OPEN and five (8.1%) in ARTHRO. The results were comparable in both groups, with no significant difference between OPEN and ARTHRO group: satisfaction rate - 96.8% and 91.9%, shoulder function - 92.2% and 90%, Walch-Duplay score - 83.9 and 76.7 respecively. A significant difference was reported in Rowe score: 87.8 in OPEN and 78.9 in ARTHRO. Another significant difference was found in the presence of "subjective apprehension"-a term referring to the subjective perception of instability with no signs of instability at clinical examination - 28.7% in OPEN and 50% in ARTHRO. Range of motion in both groups were comparable, however patients in OPEN had significantly lower loss of external rotation in adduction to the side comparing to the contralateral shoulder: 7° versus 14° in ARTHRO. Recurrence was reported in three cases in each group: 6.2% in OPEN and 4.8% in ARTHRO. A revision surgery was performed in four patients (9.3%) in OPEN and six (9.7%) in ARTHRO. Radiographic evaluation showed a significantly lower rate (5%) of graft healing problems (fracture, non-union and osteolysis) after arthroscopic stabilisation, however a partial osteolysis of the proximal part of the bone block was significantly more frequent (53.5%)., Conclusions: The arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation showed satisfactory and comparable results to open procedure. We recommend further investigation and development of arthroscopic technique., Level of Evidence: III.