Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair has yet to be established. PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes, recurrences, and complication rates of arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet as a primary procedure. DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data of patients who were diagnosed with anterior shoulder instability and underwent arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization between 2009 and 2018. Patients were separated into 2 groups depending on whether Latarjet was performed after a previous instability surgery (revision) or as a primary surgery (primary). Rowe score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome (CMSO) score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) were assessed pre- and postoperatively with a minimum 24 months of follow-up. In addition, pre- and postoperative levels of sports activity, dislocations, subluxations, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients (n = 62 revision; n = 35 primary), with a mean age of 31.0 ± 8.8 and 29.4 ± 7.6 years old in the revision and primary Latajet group, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up in the revision group was 32 months (24-53) and 35.5 months (27.7-42.2) in the primary Latarjet group. No significant differences between groups were observed in Rowe score (revision = 91.4, primary = 94.1; P = .223), CMSO score (revision = 90.7, primary = 94; P = .105), and SANE (revision = 85.8, primary = 87.3; P = .683) postoperatively. However, the postoperative difference in the WOSI score between the revision and primary Latarjet groups was nearly significant (510 ± 334 vs 403 ± 343, respectively; P = .05). Four (6.4%) postoperative dislocations were reported in the revision and 1 (2.8%) in the primary Latarjet group (P = .14). Patients in the revision group had a lower return to the previous level of sports participation (P = .008) and decreased external rotation with the arm by the side compared with the primary Latarjet group (P = .000). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery is a reasonable surgical option in failed Bankart repair cases. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. However, a decreased level of postoperative sports participation and external rotation with the arm by the side can be expected.