Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure

Flinkkilä, Tapio; Knape, Rony; Nevalainen, Mika; Sirniö, Kai; Ohtonen, Pasi

doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2019.06.020

Cited by 25 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, patients who have critical levels of bone loss typically have experienced higher numbers of dislocations and more chondral injury and are predisposed to a higher recurrence rate and residual pain. 15 , 16 Despite these risks and predispositions associated with these 2 cohorts, we did not find any significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to 90-day complication, ED visit, readmission, or secondary surgical procedure rates.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…7,[12][13][14] Recent studies have shown that LPs performed for failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR) have higher risks of redislocation and inferior clinical outcomes when compared with primary LPs performed for bone loss indications. 15,16 Although studies have reported a 6% to 9% ninety-day complication rate in patients undergoing an open LP, our understanding of the difference in acute complication rates between its use as a primary intervention and its use as salvage therapy is limited. [17][18][19] The purpose of this study was to investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the LP performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of RSI associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after FAIR.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Gambhir

Alben²,

Kim³

et al. 2022

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Gambhir

Alben²,

Kim³

et al. 2022

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This finding is relevant not only because reoperated patients have to experience a new surgery with prolonged rehabilitation, but also because the results of revision surgery after a failed Bankart repair are not always favorable. 11 Flinkkila ¨et al 11 compared the results from the Latarjet procedure as a primary or revision surgery in 99 patients. The authors reported that patients with a previous arthroscopic Bankart repair had worse outcomes than those undergoing a primary Latarjet procedure when assessed by the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI; 76 vs 85, P = .02), subjective shoulder value (SSV; 80 vs 88, P = .01), and recurrence rate (25% vs 9%, P = .03).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20%

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is a lack of evidence in the literature comparing outcomes between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Purpose: To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, and complications between the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure in competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between June 2010 and February 2018, 130 competitive rugby players with anterior shoulder instability were operated on in our institution. The first 80 patients were operated on with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure and the other 50 with the open Latarjet procedure. Return to sport, range of motion (ROM), the Rowe score, and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) were used to assess functional outcomes. Recurrences, reoperations, and complications were also evaluated. Results: In the total population, the mean follow-up was 40 months (range, 24-90 months) and the mean age was 24.2 years (range, 16-33 years). Ninety-two percent of patients were able to return to rugby, 88% at their preinjury level of play. Eighty-nine percent of patients in the Bankart group and 87% in the Latarjet group returned to compete at the same level ( P = .788). No significant difference in shoulder ROM was found between preoperative and postoperative results. The Rowe and ASOSS scores showed statistical improvement after operation ( P < .01). No significant difference in functional scores was found between the groups The Rowe score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean (± SD) of 41 ± 13 points to 89.7 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 42.5 ± 14 points to 88.4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). The ASOSS score in the Bankart group increased from a preoperative mean of 53.3 ± 3 points to 93.3 ± 6 points postoperatively, and in the Latarjet group, from a preoperative mean of 53.1 ± 3 points to 93.7 ± 4 points postoperatively ( P = .95). There were 18 recurrences (14%). The rate of recurrence was 20% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .01). There were 15 reoperations (12%). The rate of reoperation was 16% in the Bankart group and 4% in the Latarjet group ( P = .03). There were 6 complications (5%). The rate of complications was 4% in the Bankart group and 6% in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). The proportion of postoperative osteoarthritis was 10% in the Bankart group (8/80 patients) and 12% (6/50 patients) in the Latarjet group ( P = .55). Conclusion: In competitive rugby players with glenohumeral instability and a glenoid bone loss <20%, both the arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure produced excellent functional outcomes, with most athletes returning to sport at the same level they had before the injury. However, the Bankart procedure was associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence (20% vs 4%) and reoperation (16% vs 4%) than the Latarjet procedure.

show abstract

“…87 Forty-four studies reported the number of prior dislocations, which ranged from 2.2 51 to 40 93 dislocations. Three studies compared primary and revision surgery 86,100,101 ; 30 studies or study arms included only patients having primary surgery; and seven only included those having revision surgery (Supplementary Table 2). 30,58,64,75,78,102,103 RADIOGRAPHIC FINDINGS Roughly a third of included studies (29/92, 32.5%) measured postoperative arthritis, and an additional eight studies measured postoperative arthropathy.…”

Section: Demographics and Baseline Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction There is a trend towards arthroscopically treating shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency. Despite this, there remains the option for treatment through an open technique. Multiple bone augmentation options are available for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Objective To provide a systematic review of recent studies for recurrent anterior shoulder instability necessitating glenoid bone augmentation specifically through open procedures using coracoid bone or free bone blocks [iliac crest bone autograft/allograft or distal tibia allograft (DTA)]. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for studies reporting open glenoid bone augmentation procedures with iliac crest, tibia, or coracoid bones within 10 years. Extracted data included study/patient characteristics, techniques, prior surgeries, prior dislocations, radiographic findings, range of motion (ROM), recurrent instability, patient-reported outcomes, and complications. Results 92 met inclusion criteria (5693 total patients). Six were studies of iliac crest bone, four of DTA, and 84 using the coracoid bone. 29 studies measured postoperative arthritis showing no development or mild arthritis. 26 studies reported postoperative graft position. 62 studies reported ROM noting decline in internal/external rotation. 87 studies measured postoperative instability with low rates. Rowe Scores with noted improvement across 31/59 (52.5%) studies were seen. Common post operative complications included infection, hematoma, graft fracture, nerve injury, pain, and screw-related irritation. Conclusion Despite a trend towards arthroscopic management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid deficiency, open procedures continue to provide satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, studies have demonstrated safe and efficacious use of free bone block graft options in the primary and revision setting.

show abstract

Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure

Cited by 25 publications

References 28 publications

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

Recurrence and Revision Rates With Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Compared With the Latarjet Procedure in Competitive Rugby Players With Glenohumeral Instability and a Glenoid Bone Loss <20%

Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About