Background: It remains unclear whether results differ between a Latarjet procedure performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair and one performed as the primary operation. Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes of the Latarjet procedure when performed as primary surgery and as revision for a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A multicenter retrospective comparative case-cohort analysis was performed for all patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on if the Latarjet procedure was performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (group 1) or as the first operation (group 2). Outcome measures included recurrent instability, reoperation rates, complications, pain, Walch-Duplay scores, and Simple Shoulder Test. Results: A total of 308 patients were eligible for participation in the study; 72 (23.4%) did not answer and were considered lost to follow-up, leaving 236 patients available for analysis. Mean follow-up was 3.4 ± 0.8 years. There were 20 patients in group 1 and 216 in group 2. Despite similar rates of recurrent instability (5.0% in group 1 vs 2.3% in group 2; P = .5) and revision surgery (0% in group 1 vs 6.5% in group 2; P = .3), group 1 demonstrated significantly worse pain scores (2.56 ± 2.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.7; P = .01) and patient-reported outcomes (Walch-Duplay: 52 ± 25.1 vs 72.2 ± 25.0; P = .0007; Simple Shoulder Test: 9.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.7 ± 1.9; P = .001) when compared with those patients undergoing primary Latarjet procedures. Conclusion: Functional outcome scores and postoperative pain are significantly worse in patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair when compared with patients undergoing primary Latarjet. The assumption that a failed a Bankart repair can be revised by a Latarjet with a similar result to a primary Latarjet appears to be incorrect. Surgeons should consider these findings when deciding on the optimal surgical procedure for recurrent shoulder instability.

Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is an efficient and reliable approach for the treatment of shoulder instability. Nevertheless, the screws fixing the bone block may sometimes be responsible for pain and uncomfortable snapping in the shoulder that is triggered during active external rotation. We propose an all-arthroscopic technique for screw removal in cases of complications involving the screws from a Latarjet procedure. The all-arthroscopic screw removal is reliable and efficient. This procedure is indicated in more cases than thought because of the bone block resorption. It permits a revision of the glenohumeral joint in case of persisting pain.

This technique can be used to treat fifth metacarpal neck fractures.

An articular glenoid fracture is an uncommon injury. Usually significantly displaced intra-articular glenoid fractures are treated with open reduction surgery. Conventional open surgery techniques involve high morbidity. Here we describe an arthroscopy-assisted reduction and fixation method of an Ideberg type III glenoid fracture. This method provides good articular reduction without extensive exposure or soft tissue dissection and without nerve and/or vascular lesion.

ObjectivesThe two most common surgical interventions for recurrent anterior shoulder instability include arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure. However, indications for each procedure remain debated between surgeons with 90% of surgeons (except French surgeons) preferring soft tissue Bankart repair initially. It remains unclear whether the results of a Latarjet procedure performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair differ from those performed for primary cases. The purpose of our study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients who had undergone a Latarjet as a primary surgery versus those who had had a Latarjet as revision surgery for a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair MethodsPatients who had undergone open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure between 2003 and 2015 in 5 fellowshiptrained surgical practices were included. Charts were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who had undergone a primary Latarjet or those who had had a Bankart repair prior to the Latarjet. Age, ISIS score, BMI, sports activity, hyperlaxity and delay before surgery were retrospectively collected. Outcome measures were prospectively collected, including range of motion, SSV, Walch-Duplay, scores, recurrence of instability, apprehension or new surgery. ResultsA total of 311 patients were included. 28% of the patients were lost to follow-up and the mean follow-up was 3.4 years +/-0.8. There were 21 patients who had had a Bankart repair prior to the Latarjet procedure. Both populations were comparable regarding preoperative data. The postoperative instability rate was 3% in the overall population; 4.8% in the "primary Latarjet" group and 2.3 % in the "Latarjet for failed Bankart" group. This difference was not significant (p=0.50). However, the mean Walch-Duplay score was significantly lower and the pain scores significantly higher in patients who had had a prior Bankart repair: 51.9 +/-25 versus 72.1 +/-25.2 and 2.5/10 versus 1.2/10 respectively. The Simple Shoulder Test was comparable in both groups. ConclusionThe study confirms that the Latarjet is an effective procedure to treat primary chronic anterior instability and also to stabilize a shoulder after a failed Bankart repair. However, the thought that a Bankart repair does not "burn any bridges" appears to be incorrect relative to postoperative pain and functional scores in the setting of future Latarjet procedure.

No abstract

No abstract

IV, case-control study, diagnostic study.