Clinical Outcomes of the Traditional Latarjet Versus the Congruent Arc Modification for the Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared clinical outcomes between the traditional Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability and the congruent arc modification to the Latarjet procedure. PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the literature for the incidence of recurrent instability, clinical outcomes, radiographic findings, and complications for the traditional Latarjet procedure and the congruent arc modification and to compare results of each search. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We included studies published between January 1990 and October 2020 that described clinical outcomes of the traditional Latarjet and the congruent arc modification with a follow-up range of 2 to 10 years. The difference in surgical technique was analyzed using a chi-square test for categorical variables, while continuous variables were evaluated using a Student t test. RESULTS: In total, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria: 20 studies describing the traditional Latarjet procedure in 1412 shoulders, and 6 studies describing the congruent arc modification in 289 shoulders. No difference between procedures was found regarding patient age at surgery, follow-up time, Rowe or postoperative visual analog scores, early or late complications, return-to-sport timing, or incidence of improper graft placement or graft fracture. A significantly greater proportion of male patients underwent glenoid augmentation using the congruent arc modification versus traditional Latarjet (P < .001). When comparing outcomes, the traditional Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower incidence of fibrous union or nonunion (P = .047) and broken, loose, or improperly placed screws (P < .001), and the congruent arc modification demonstrated improved outcomes with regard to overall return to sport (P < .001), return to sport at the same level (P < .001), incidence of subluxation (P = .003) or positive apprehension (P = .002), and revision surgery for recurrent instability (P = .027). CONCLUSION: Outcomes after the congruent arc modification proved at least equivalent to the traditional Latarjet procedure in terms of recurrent instability and return to sport, although early and late complications were equivalent. The congruent arc procedure may be an acceptable alternative to traditional Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are needed.

Investigating the International Normalized Ratio Thresholds for Complication in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In patients on warfarin anticoagulation therapy, elective shoulder arthroplasty surgeons must carefully balance bleeding and embolic risks. Currently, an international normalized ratio (INR) threshold of 1.5 is supported in the setting of elective surgery. However, no previous study has investigated the optimal preoperative INR target specifically in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of preoperative INR with rates of transfusion, complication, and readmission/revision surgery in shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective shoulder arthroplasty were identified in a national database. The primary outcome of interest was the risk for all-cause complication at 30 days postoperatively. Major and minor complication, revision surgery, and readmission rates were also investigated. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2016, 1,014 procedures were identified who had undergone elective shoulder arthroplasty with a perioperative INR lab result within 24 hours of surgery. In our cohort, 550 patients (54.2%) were women, with an average age of 71.0 ± 9.8 years. After controlling for confounders, patients with a preoperative INR > 1.5 were 18.9 times as likely to have a major complication as those with a preoperative INR ≤ 1.0 (P = 0.003). Patients with an INR of 1.25 < INR ≤ 1.5 did not have a statistically significant risk of minor or major complication in comparison with those with an INR ≤ 1.0 (P = 0.23, P = 0.67). DISCUSSION: Although recent hip and knee arthroplasty literature has found that an INR < 1.25 may be an optimal preoperative INR goal, our results did not find an increased risk for bleeding and complication with an INR ≤ 1.5 for shoulder arthroplasty. These results support current guidelines recommending a preoperative INR ≤ 1.5 for shoulder arthroplasty.