Primary Open Latarjet Procedure Versus Revision to Open Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability

Rashad Madi,Ryan Lopez,Holt S. Cutler,C. Lucas Myerson,Alexander Lee,Cody Hansen,David L. Glaser,G. Russell Huffman,John D. Kelly,John G. Horneff
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20240826-06
2024-09-04
Orthopedics
Abstract:Background: Although the Latarjet operation may be performed as a revision surgery for anterior shoulder instability, the high recurrence rate of anterior shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) has led some to advocate for performing the Latarjet procedure as a primary stabilization surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the intermediate-term outcomes after primary open Latarjet (PLJ) and revision to open Latarjet (RLJ). Materials and Methods: This was a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients who underwent either PLJ or RLJ procedures for anterior shoulder instability between 2014 and 2023. Patients with less than 1 year of follow-up, seizure history, multidirectional instability, concurrent rotator cuff repair, or the absence of preoperative imaging were excluded. Glenoid bone loss (GBL), the width of Hill-Sachs lesions, recurrent dislocations, and reoperations were assessed. Results: The study included 29 patients, with 12 undergoing PLJ procedures and 17 undergoing RLJ procedures. The mean duration of follow-up was similar for the two groups (4.7 vs 4.6 years, P =.854). Patients undergoing PLJ procedures demonstrated a higher mean GBL (18.4%) compared with patients undergoing revision (10.5%; P =.035); however, there was no significant difference in Hill-Sachs lesion size (14.2 vs 10.4 mm, P =.374). After stratifying according to GBL, the groups undergoing PLJ and RLJ procedures had similar recurrent dislocation rates (8.3% and 11.8%, respectively; P =1.0) and reoperation frequency (25.0% and 23.5%, respectively; P =1.0). Conclusion: The PLJ and RLJ groups had comparable rates of recurrent dislocations, complications, and reoperations, emphasizing the value of considering Latarjet procedures as revision surgery after unsuccessful primary arthroscopic stabilization. [ Orthopedics . 202x;4x(X):xx–xx.]
orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?