Kany, Jean

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.

Background: The preoperative number of dislocations has been previously proved to be a major factor influencing the results after Bankart repair with more preoperative dislocations correlated with higher recurrence rates and more reoperations. This could possibly be because of the lower quality of the tissue repaired during the procedure after multiple dislocations. On the other hand, the Latarjet procedure does not “repair” but rather reconstructs and augments the anterior glenoid. Purpose/Hypothesis: The main objective was to report the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a Latarjet procedure after 1 dislocation versus multiple (≥2) dislocations. The hypothesis was that the preoperative number of dislocations would not influence clinical results. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients older than 18 years who had undergone a primary Latarjet procedure for shoulder instability with at least 2 years of follow-up were included. Three different techniques were used: a mini-open technique using 2 screws, an arthroscopic technique using 2 screws, and an arthroscopic technique using 2 cortical buttons. Patients were evaluated and answered a questionnaire to assess the number of episodes of dislocation before surgery, the time between the first dislocation and surgery, recurrence of the dislocation, revision surgery, the Walch-Duplay score, the Simple Shoulder Test score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain. Results: A total of 308 patients were included for analysis with a mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 0.8 years. Of that, 83 patients were included in the first-time dislocation group and 225 in the recurrent dislocation group. At last follow-up, the rates of recurrence and reoperation were not significantly different between groups: 4.8% in the first-time dislocation group versus 3.65% in the recurrent dislocation group and 6.1% versus 4.0%, respectively. The overall Walch-Duplay scores at last follow-up were also comparable between the 2 groups, 67.3 ± 24.85 and 71.8 ± 25.1, even though the first-time dislocation group showed a lower pain subscore (15.0 ± 8.6 vs 18.0 ± 7.5; P = .003). The VAS for pain was also significantly higher in the first-time dislocation group compared with the recurrent dislocation group (1.8 ± 2.3 vs 1.2 ± 1.7; P = .03). Conclusion: The number of episodes of dislocation before surgery does not affect postoperative instability rates and reoperation rates after the Latarjet procedure. However, patients with first-time dislocations had more postoperative pain compared with patients with recurrent dislocations before surgery.