How to salvage the fractured coracoid during the Latarjet Procedure? An empirical approach.

The Latarjet procedure is a frequently used stabilization procedure in case of anterior shoulder instability with critical glenoid bone loss and/or off-track Hill Sachs lesions. Although uncommon, intra-operative graft fractures do occur. When confronted with this potentially challenging intra-operative complication, having a secondary solution is paramount to achieve a successful outcome. This technical note provides a treatment algorithm that may function as a useful guideline to assist surgeons that experience this potentially complex unintended event during a Latarjet procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Why do patients with anterior shoulder instability not return to sport after surgery? A systematic review of 63 studies comprising 3545 patients.

Purpose: To review athletes' reasons not to return to sport (RTS) after surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability, comparing capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. The hypothesis is that the most common reason for patients unable to RTS is not due to physical inability of the shoulder. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, SPORTDiscus/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics were searched in collaboration with an information specialist up to August 11, 2022. Observational and interventional studies reporting reasons for no RTS following surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability were included. Quality assessment of studies was conducted using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment. Forest plots were generated to show an overview of the proportion shoulder function independent reasons for each study. Results: Sixty-three studies were included reporting on 3545 athletes, of which 2588 (73%) underwent capsulolabral repair versus 957 (27%) who underwent surgical treatment with bony reconstruction procedures. A total of 650 athletes (18%) were unable to RTS. The reason not to RTS was most frequently shoulder function independent (70%) compared to shoulder function dependent (30%) following both capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. Most cited reasons for no RTS after capsulolabral repair were fear of reinjury (17%), personal reasons or change of priorities (11%) and retirement/discharge of military service or sports team (10%). Of these reasons, 106 (22%) were not specified other than being shoulder function dependent or shoulder function independent. Most cited reasons for no RTS after bony reconstruction procedures were fear of reinjury (12%), shoulder pain (10%), and retirement/discharge of military service or sports team (9%). Of these reasons, 74 (44%) were not specified other than being shoulder function dependent or shoulder function independent. Forest plots showed a variation from 0% to 100% shoulder independent reasons for both capsulolabral repair and bony reconstruction procedures. Conclusion: The majority of athletes who did not RTS following surgical treatment for anterior shoulder instability did so due to shoulder function independent reasons, such as fear of reinjury. However, there was a high variety between studies and many reasons were unspecified, warranting unified definitions for reasons of patients that do not RTS.

The O'Brien test demonstrates a higher diagnostic value in identifying posteroinferior labral tears than superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears.

Background: The primary aim was to determine the diagnostic value of the O'Brien test in localizing labral tears of the shoulder. Methods: A consecutive series of patients electing for labral repair between January 2005 and March 2021 were included in this retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) any patient with a labral tear who was elected for arthroscopic labral repair and (2) had documentation of the O'Brien test in the preoperative evaluation. Exclusion criteria were patients that had a negative arthrographically enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. During arthroscopy, the localization and extension of the labral tear was documented in a standardized 12-o'clock configuration. Anteroinferior, posteroinferior, superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP), and combined labral tears were documented. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, positive and negative likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve were calculated to determine the diagnostic value. Results: The cohort consisted of 271 patients (77% male) and included 105 anteroinferior, 86 posteroinferior, 46 SLAP, and 32 combined parts of the labrum. The mean age at time of surgery was 30 (±10.2) years. The O'Brien test was positive in 142 (52%) patients and showed the highest sensitivity and specificity for the posteroinferior tears (83% and 62%) compared to the anteroinferior (16% and 25%), combined labral parts (69% and 50%), and SLAP (65% and 50%) tears. In addition, receiver operating characteristic-analysis demonstrated a significantly higher area under the curve for posteroinferior tears compared to the other tears (P < .001). Conclusion: The O'Brien test demonstrates more diagnostic value for posteroinferior tears than other labral tears. This includes the SLAP tear, for which the O'Brien test was originally designed. Clinical Relevance: These findings are helpful towards reinterpreting the O'Brien test as well as diagnosing, and more specifically localizing labral tears in clinics.

Predictive value of Gagey's hyperabduction test in identifying inferior glenohumeral ligament lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical tests that can identify inferior glenohumeral ligament (IGHL) complex injuries are indispensable for the diagnosis of shoulder instability. Gagey's hyperabduction test had been developed to diagnose IGHL hyperlaxity, however, it is unclear whether the test is able to accurately diagnose an IGHL lesion. The aim of this study was to (1) determine the diagnostic performance of the Gagey test in identifying an IGHL lesion and (2) determine if a positive Gagey test is more predictive for an anterior or posterior IGHL lesion thanks to the heatmapping of the lesions. It was hypothesized that a Gagey test can accurately predict IGHL lesions, but would not be able to distinguish between anterior and inferior IGHL lesions. METHODS: A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted including all consecutive patients who underwent glenoid labral repair between January 2005 and September 2021 with a documented Gagey test prior to surgery. Using arthroscopic findings as a reference standard, the diagnostic performance characteristics of the Gagey test for each type of IGHL lesion (anterior, posterior and combined) were calculated and labral heatmapping was used to depict its localisation. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included, with a mean age of 29±10 years. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the Gagey test on determining an IGHL lesion were 46%, 38% and 46%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 88% and 7%, respectively. Heatmapping of the labral lesions demonstrated that a positive Gagey test was most predictive of anterior IGHL and axillary pouch tears and non-predictive of posterior IGHL lesions. DISCUSSION: The Gagey test demonstrated a low sensitivity and specificity to identify an IGHL lesion and therefore the hypothesis could not be confirmed. However, the Gagey test has a high positive predictive value to diagnose anterior IGHL lesions. Further prospective research with a more evenly distribution of lesions is needed to investigate the clinical value of the Gagey test to identify these lesions. Based on this data, the Gagey test seems especially important to support the results of other clinical tests such as the apprehension, relocation and surprise tests. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective Case-Control study.

Development and training of a machine learning algorithm to identify patients at risk for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair (CLEARER): protocol for a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder instability is a common injury, with a reported incidence of 23.9 per 100 000 person-years. There is still an ongoing debate on the most effective treatment strategy. Non-operative treatment has recurrence rates of up to 60%, whereas operative treatments such as the Bankart repair and bone block procedures show lower recurrence rates (16% and 2%, respectively) but higher complication rates (<2% and up to 30%, respectively). Methods to determine risk of recurrence have been developed; however, patient-specific decision-making tools are still lacking. Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms use self-learning complex models that can be used to make patient-specific decision-making tools. The aim of the current study is to develop and train a machine learning algorithm to create a prediction model to be used in clinical practice-as an online prediction tool-to estimate recurrence rates following a Bankart repair. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations that were treated with an arthroscopic Bankart repair without remplissage will be included. This study includes two parts. Part 1, collecting all potential factors influencing the recurrence rate following an arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients using multicentre data, aiming to include data from >1000 patients worldwide. Part 2, the multicentre data will be re-evaluated (and where applicable complemented) using machine learning algorithms to predict outcomes. Recurrence will be the primary outcome measure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For safe multicentre data exchange and analysis, our Machine Learning Consortium adhered to the WHO regulation 'Policy on Use and Sharing of Data Collected by WHO in Member States Outside the Context of Public Health Emergencies'. The study results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No Institutional Review Board is required for this study.

Arthroscopic Bone Block Procedure for Posterior Shoulder Instability: Updated Surgical Technique.

Posterior shoulder instability is generally caused by traumatic posterior dislocations or repetitive microtrauma during sports or other activities and has an annual incidence rate of 4.64 per 100,000 person-years. Several surgical techniques to treat posterior shoulder instability have been described, including soft-tissue repair and both open and arthroscopic bone block procedures. However, even though patient-reported outcomes are commonly high, surgical procedures are associated with high complication and revision rates of up to 14% and 67%, respectively. In particular, accurate placement of the bone graft, screw orientation, and the treatment of concomitant lesions are considered challenging. Therefore, improvement of surgical techniques is desirable. This Technical Note describes an updated approach to the arthroscopic posterior bone block augmentation described by Lafosse et al. (2012), with tips and tricks on the harvest and positioning of the graft.

History of closed reduction techniques and initial management for shoulder dislocations: From classical antiquity to modern times.

This review gives a summary of the records of shoulder dislocation management throughout history until the point that anaesthetics were introduced and modern medicine improved dislocation management exponentially. A dislocation is a mechanical injury that has been managed in different ways throughout history. The shoulder reduction methods described in Hippocrates Corpus have been described and adjusted throughout history by later physicians. For example, in ancient Greek, Hippocrates considered the ambe, a device used to reduce the shoulder, to be the most powerful tool. However, Cooper, a physician in the 19th century, considered it to be the last resort due to substantial damage to the ribs and discomfort of the patient. This review demonstrates that there were many physicians that contributed to shoulder dislocation management. These physicians paved the way for modern shoulder dislocation treatment strategies.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found. CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.

Age, participation in competitive sports, bony lesions, ALPSA lesions, > 1 preoperative dislocations, surgical delay and ISIS score > 3 are risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4584 shoulders.

PURPOSE: Determining the risk of recurrent instability following an arthroscopic Bankart repair can be challenging, as numerous risk factors have been identified that might predispose recurrent instability. However, an overview with quantitative analysis of all available risk factors is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify risk factors that are associated with recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, CINAHL/Ebsco, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from inception up to November 12th 2020. Studies evaluating risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimal follow-up of 2 years were included. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised a total of 4582 shoulders (4578 patients). Meta-analyses were feasible for 22 risk factors and demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years (RR = 2.02; P < 0.00001), age ≤ 30 years (RR = 2.62; P = 0.005), participation in competitive sports (RR = 2.40; P = 0.02), Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 1.77; P = 0.0005), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion (RR = 3.24; P = 0.002), glenoid bone loss (RR = 2.38; P = 0.0001), ALPSA lesion (RR = 1.90; P = 0.03), > 1 preoperative dislocations (RR = 2.02; P = 0.03), > 6 months surgical delay (RR = 2.86; P < 0.0001), ISIS > 3 (RR = 3.28; P = 0.0007) and ISIS > 6 (RR = 4.88; P < 0.00001) were risk factors for recurrence. Male gender, an affected dominant arm, hyperlaxity, participation in contact and/or overhead sports, glenoid fracture, SLAP lesion with/without repair, rotator cuff tear, > 5 preoperative dislocations and using ≤ 2 anchors could not be confirmed as risk factors. In addition, no difference was observed between the age groups ≤ 20 and 21-30 years. CONCLUSION: Meta-analyses demonstrated that age ≤ 20 years, age ≤ 30 years, participation in competitive sports, Hill-Sachs lesion, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, glenoid bone loss, ALPSA lesion, > 1 preoperative dislocations, > 6 months surgical delay from first-time dislocation to surgery, ISIS > 3 and ISIS > 6 were risk factors for recurrence following an arthroscopic Bankart repair. These factors can assist clinicians in giving a proper advice regarding treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment Following First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate about whether to perform operative or nonoperative treatment following a first-time anterior dislocation or wait for recurrence before operating. The aim of this systematic review is to compare recurrence rates following operative treatment following first-time anterior dislocation (OTFD) with recurrence rates following (1) nonoperative treatment (NTFD) or (2) operative treatment after recurrent anterior dislocation (OTRD). METHODS: A literature search was conducted by searching PubMed (Legacy), Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics from 1990 to April 15, 2020, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The revised tool to assess risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2) developed by Cochrane was used to determine bias in randomized controlled trials, and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was used to determine the methodological quality of non-randomized studies. The certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach using GRADEpro software. RESULTS: Of the 4,096 studies for which the titles were screened, 9 comparing OTFD and NTFD in a total of 533 patients and 6 comparing OTFD and OTRD in a total of 961 patients were included. There is high-quality evidence that OTFD is associated with a lower rate of recurrence (10%) at >10 years of follow-up compared with NTFD (55%) (p < 0.0001). There is very low-quality evidence that patients receiving OTFD had a lower recurrence rate (11%) compared with those receiving OTRD (17%) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence showing a lower recurrence rate at >10 years following OTFD compared with NTFD (or sham surgery) in young patients. There is evidence that OTFD is more effective than OTRD, but that evidence is of very low quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.