Systematic Review of Level III and IV Studies, Level IV.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures are both known to successfully treat shoulder instability with high success rates. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and positioning of the coracoid graft and screws between the arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures.MethodsThe electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies between database creation and 2018. Only studies directly comparing open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures were included.ResultsThere were 8 included studies, with a total of 580 patients treated arthroscopically and 362 patients treated with an open Latarjet procedure. Several papers found significantly better standardized outcome scores for either the open or arthroscopic procedure but these findings were not consistent across papers. Patients treated with arthroscopic Latarjet procedures had significantly lower initial post-operative pain, however pain scores became equivalent by one month post-operatively. Three of the five included studies found no significant difference in the coracoid graft positioning and two of three included studies found no significant difference in screw divergence angles between the two techniques. Arthroscopic procedures (112.2 min) appear to take, on average, longer than open procedures (93.3 min). However, operative times and complication rates decrease with surgeon experience with the arthroscopic procedure. Overall 3.8% of the patients treated arthroscopically and 6.4% of the patients treated with the open procedure went on to have post-operative complications.ConclusionsBoth open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures can be used to effectively treat shoulder instability with similarly low rates of complications, recurrent instability and need for revision surgery. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures are associated with less early post-operative pain but require increased operative time. The evidence does not support there being any significant difference in graft or screw positioning between the two techniques. At this time neither procedure shows clear superiority over the other.

Context:Pectoralis major tendon ruptures are becoming increasingly common due to the growing prevalence of active lifestyles. Studies investigating the efficacy of pectoralis major tendon repair have limited sample sizes and offer mixed results, while existing reviews do not explore postoperative activity outcomes for patients.Objective:To summarize and synthesize the clinical outcomes and rate of return to activity after isolated pectoralis major tendon repair.Data Sources:Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were searched from database inception through March 7, 2018.Study Selection:Studies reporting outcomes of isolated pectoralis major tendon repair for pectoralis major tendon rupture were included.Study Design:Systematic review.Level of Evidence:Level 4.Data Extraction:Data including patient demographics, intervention details, and clinical outcomes were extracted. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated.Results:Of 2332 retrieved articles, 18 studies were included, with a total of 536 patients. A majority (90%; 134/149) of patients undergoing pectoralis major tendon repair successfully returned to sport at a mean 6.1 ± 1.7 months postsurgery, of which 74% (95/128) successfully returned to their preinjury level of sport. The majority (95%; 269/284) of patients returned to work at a mean 6.9 ± 1 months. Postsurgically, 81% (83/102) of patients experienced complete pain relief after the surgery, and 19% (21/109) had cosmetic complaints after pectoralis major repair. Of the 10 studies that reported complications, 18% (75/423) of patients had postoperative complications, including reruptures and wound infections; 7% (30/423) of patients required reoperation for their complications.Conclusion:Pectoralis major tendon repair is an effective treatment that results in a high rate of return to sport and work, pain relief, and improved cosmetic appearance, albeit with a significant rate of complication. The evidence supporting all outcomes was limited by the rarity of the injury, the variable surgical techniques, and outcome assessment criteria.

Background:Anterior shoulder instability, including recurrent instability, is a common problem, particularly in young, active patients and contact athletes. The Latarjet procedure is a common procedure to treat recurrent shoulder instability.Purpose:To identify the reported learning curves associated with the Latarjet procedure and to determine a point on the learning curve after which a surgeon can be considered to have achieved proficiency.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:Three online databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed) were systematically searched and screened in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. The search included results from the inception of each database to January 23, 2017. Data regarding study characteristics, patient demographics, learning curve analyses, and complications were collected. Study quality was assessed in duplicate.Results:Two level 3 studies and 3 level 4 studies of fair methodological quality were included. Overall, 349 patients (350 shoulders) with a mean age of 25.1 years (range, 14-52 years) were included in the final data analysis. Patients were predominantly male (93.7%). After 22 open and 20 to 40 arthroscopic Latarjet procedures, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency as measured by decreased operative time. For open procedures, complication rates and lengths of hospital stay decreased significantly with increased experience (Spearman ρ = –0.3, P = .009 and Spearman ρ = –0.6, P < .0001, respectively).Conclusion:With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures, as measured by decreased operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate. The most commonly reported difference was operative time, which was significant across all studies. Overall, the Latarjet procedure is a safe procedure with low complication rates, although further research is required to truly characterize this learning curve.

No abstract

No abstract