Use of Cannulated Screws for Primary Latarjet Procedures

Rattier, Simon; Druel, Thibaut; Hirakawa, Yoshihiro; Gröger, F.; Rooij, Floris van; Neyton, Lionel

doi:10.1177/23259671221117802

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9,13,14,35 In the future, this weakness of the open Latarjet procedure could be solved by using specifically designed screws or by switching to modern corticalbutton fixation of the graft. 12,31 Surprisingly, the BK group experienced a higher rate of osteoarthritis than the LT group (68% vs 38%, respectively), with grade 2 in 23% of the BK patients. Neviaser et al 25 reported an osteoarthritis rate of 47% after open Bankart at 17 years of follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players

Bonnevialle

Mattési

Martinel³

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Because rugby is a collision sport, it exposes players to a high risk of recurrence after anterior shoulder stabilization. Therefore, the choice of surgical procedure warrants close attention in order to optimize the time to return to sport and the stability of the shoulder throughout the player’s career. Hypothesis: The open Latarjet procedure would allow for a faster return to play and provide a lower rate of recurrence than the open Bankart repair at long-term follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 62 competitive rugby players who had undergone an anterior shoulder instability procedure and had at least 5 years of follow-up data. A total of 32 players treated with an open Bankart repair (BK group) were compared with 30 players (31 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure (LT group). Outcomes between groups were compared with the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, recurrence rate, and osteoarthritis evaluation on plain radiograph (Samilson classification). Results: The recurrence rate was significantly higher at 18.8% for the BK group (mean follow-up, 6.9 ± 1.7 years) compared with 3.3% for the LT group (mean follow-up, 6.2 ± 1.4 years) ( P = .04). No postoperative complications occurred in the BK group, whereas 1 infection and 1 hematoma required a second surgery in the LT group ( P = .14). In the BK and LT groups, 97% and 90% of players, respectively, were able to return to rugby at the same level or higher ( P = .27), at a mean time of 8 and 6.3 months, respectively ( P = .03). The mean Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores were not significantly different between the groups; however, the osteoarthritis rate was significantly higher in the BK versus the LT group (68% vs 38%, respectively; P = .03); 23% of patients, all in the BK group, had Samilson grade 2 osteoarthritis. Conclusion: The open Latarjet procedure outperformed the open Bankart procedure in terms of stability, time to return to play, and radiological outcomes at long-term follow-up in competitive rugby players.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players

Bonnevialle

Mattési

Martinel³

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exclusion criteria were generalized joint laxity, multidirectional shoulder instability, other shoulder pathology associated with shoulder instability (such as rotator cuff tear), recurrence of dislocation after surgery, or postoperative shoulder stiffness defined by deficits in range of motion >20° in ≥2 planes when compared with the contralateral shoulder. 22…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research ethics committee approval (IRB00010835) was granted for this single-center retrospective analysis of 22 A sample of 68 healthy athletes with no history of upper extremity surgery or shoulder problems during the 6 months preceding the measurements were recruited for CG. The distribution of sex, laterality, type of sport, and sport involvement as well as mean age, body mass, and body height of the CG presented no significant differences compared with those variables in the 2 groups of patients.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional Deficits After Open Latarjet Procedure and Dominance of the Operated Shoulder: An Analysis of 133 Patients

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Return to sport after stabilization surgery using the open Latarjet procedure remains challenging. Additional knowledge is needed about postoperative shoulder functional deficits in order to better design return-to-sport programs. Purpose: To investigate the effects of the dominance status of the operated shoulder on the shoulder functional profile recovery at 4.5 months after open Latarjet procedure. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure between December 2017 and February 2021 were eligible for the study. Functional assessment at 4.5 months after the surgery was performed using the following tests: maximal voluntary isometric contractions in glenohumeral internal and external rotation, upper-quarter Y balance test, unilateral seated shot-put test, and modified closed kinetic chain upper extremity stability test, leading to 10 outcome measures. Patients whose dominant side had undergone surgery and those whose nondominant side had undergone surgery were compared with a group of 68 healthy control participants. Results: A total of 72 patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure on the dominant side and 61 patients who underwent open Latarjet on the nondominant side were compared with 68 healthy control athletes. In patients whose dominant shoulder had undergone surgery, significant deficits for the dominant side ( P < .001) and for the nondominant side ( P < .001) were found in 9 of 10 functional outcome measures. Among patients whose operations were on the nondominant shoulder, significant deficits for the nondominant side ( P < .001) and for the dominant side ( P < .001) were found in 9 and 5 of the 10 functional outcome measures, respectively. Conclusion: Regardless of dominance of the stabilized shoulder, persistent deficits in strength, stability, mobility, power, and stroke frequency were observed at 4.5 months postoperatively. Stabilization of the dominant shoulder resulted in residual surgery-related functional impairments on both sides. However, stabilization of the nondominant shoulder resulted in impairments primarily noted in the nondominant, operative shoulder. Registration: NCT05150379 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

show abstract

“…More recently, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair arthroscopic bony Bankart repair [49] was introduced as a less invasive alternative to arthroscopic Latarjet, to treat anterior shoulder instability with traumatic glenoid defects, where the bone fragment is still present and could be sutured back onto the glenoid [4]. While arthroscopic bony Bankart repair demonstrated satisfactory bone union rates, it is associated with higher rates of recurrent instability compared to arthroscopic Latarjet [6,39,52,54], and may be insufficient to treat shoulders with irreparable ligamentous damage, attritional glenoid bone loss, or major bone deficiencies [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopic Latarjet yields better union and prevention of instability compared to arthroscopic bony Bankart repair in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability: a systematic review

Billaud,

Baverel,

van Rooij

et al. 2023

Knee surg. sports traumatol. arthrosc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure or arthroscopic bony Bankart repair provide better outcomes in terms of rates of recurrent instability, non-union and complications, as well as clinical scores and range of motion. Methods An electronic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane databases, applying the following keywords: "Arthroscopic bony Bankart" OR "Arthroscopic osseous Bankart" AND "Arthroscopic Latarjet" OR "Arthroscopic coracoid bone block". ResultsThe systematic search returned 1465 records, of which 29 were included (arthroscopic bony Bankart repair, n = 16; arthroscopic Latarjet, n = 13). 37 datasets were included for data extraction, on 1483 shoulders. Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair had significantly higher instability rates (0.14; CI 0.10-0.18; vs 0.04; CI 0.02-0.06), significantly lower union rates (0.63; CI 0.28-0.91 vs 0.98; CI 0.93-1.00), and significantly lower pain on VAS (0.42; CI 0.17-0.67 vs 1.17; CI 0.96-1.38). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid bone loss, follow-up, complication rate, ROWE score, ASES score, external rotation, and anterior forward elevation between arthroscopic Latarjet and arthroscopic bony Bankart repair. Conclusion Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair results in significantly (i) higher rates of recurrent instability (14% vs 4%), (ii) lower union rates (63% vs 98%), but (iii) slightly lower pain on VAS (0.45 vs 1.17). There were no differences in complication rates, clinical scores, or postoperative ranges of motion. Level of evidence IV.

show abstract

Use of Cannulated Screws for Primary Latarjet Procedures

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players

Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players

Functional Deficits After Open Latarjet Procedure and Dominance of the Operated Shoulder: An Analysis of 133 Patients

Arthroscopic Latarjet yields better union and prevention of instability compared to arthroscopic bony Bankart repair in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About