Clinical outcomes, return to sport, and complications after isolated primary Latarjet versus Latarjet as a revision procedure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to compare clinical outcomes, return to sport (RTS), and complications in comparative studies examining patients undergoing primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the revision setting following soft tissue stabilization. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of level I to III human clinical studies reporting clinical outcomes (Visual Analogue Pain Scale [VAS]), RTS metrics, and complications in patients following primary versus revision Latarjet procedures. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. RESULTS: A total of seven studies, consisting of 1170 patients (n=1179 shoulders) with a mean age of 26.4 years, consisting of 91.9% males (n=1083/1179 shoulders), were identified. Mean final follow-up was 46.4 (mean range, 7.3-72.2) months. A total of 748 primary and 431 revision Latarjet procedures were analyzed. Complications were reported in 9.6% (range, 0%-24.2%) of patients undergoing primary and 20.2% (range, 0%-40.7%) in patients undergoing revision procedures (p=0.22). There was no significant difference in the RTS rate between patients undergoing primary (87.3%; range, 83.8%-92.1%) versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (78.9%; range, 60%-100%) (p=0.08). Moreover, no significant difference in postoperative VAS was observed in patients undergoing primary versus Latarjet as a revision procedure (p=0.21). Recurrent shoulder subluxation was significantly greater in patients undergoing revision (12.0%; n=31/259 shoulders; range, 0%-20.7%) compared to primary procedures (3.3%; n=27/511 shoulders; range, 0%-9%) (p<0.001). DISCUSSION: Patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet demonstrated overall similar rates of complications and return to sport. Of clinical importance, Latarjet as a revision procedure possessed a risk of recurrent subluxation 3.6 times higher than primary Latarjet. While effective, patients should be counseled regarding the differing prognosis between Latarjet as a primary or revision procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-anatomical reconstruction of chronic posterolateral corner knee injuries show failure rates from 0% to 36% versus 4.3% to 24.2% for anatomic reconstruction techniques: An updated systematic review reflecting the 2019 expert consensus statement.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the literature regarding outcomes following surgical management of chronic, grade III posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries, with an emphasis on estimating failure rates based upon objective parameters in light of the 2019 expert consensus, while secondarily comparing the failure rates of anatomic versus non-anatomic reconstruction techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of level I-IV human clinical studies reporting subjective and objective outcomes in patients following surgical management for chronic (>6 weeks from injury) grade III PLC injuries, with a minimum two-year follow-up. The criterion for objective surgical failure was based on post-operative varus stress radiographs and defined as a side-to-side difference of 3 â€‹mm or more of lateral gapping. RESULTS: A total of six studies, consisting of 10 separate cohorts encompassing a total of 230 patients, were identified. PLC reconstruction was performed in all cohorts, with 80 â€‹% (n â€‹= â€‹8/10) of these cohorts utilising an anatomic reconstruction technique. A failure rate ranging from 4.3 â€‹% to 36 â€‹% was found. Subgroup analysis revealed a failure rate of 4.3 â€‹%-24.2 â€‹% for anatomic reconstruction techniques, whereas a 0 â€‹%-36 â€‹% failure rate was found for non-anatomic reconstruction. Arthrofibrosis was the most common complication (range, 0 â€‹%-12.1 â€‹%) following surgery. 0 â€‹%-8 â€‹% of patients required revision PLC surgery. CONCLUSION: PLC reconstruction yields a wide variability in failure rates according to the side-to-side difference of 3 â€‹mm or more of lateral gapping on post-operative varus stress radiographs, with low revision rates following anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Systematic Review of Level III and IV studies.

Higher success rate observed in reconstruction techniques of acute posterolateral corner knee injuries as compared to repair: an updated systematic review.

PURPOSE: There remains controversy regarding the optimal surgical treatment for acute complete (grade III) posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries. The purpose of this article is to systematically review the contemporary literature regarding surgical options and subsequent outcomes of acute grade III PLC injuries. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the following search terms: posterolateral corner knee, posterolateral knee, posterolateral instability, multi-ligament knee, and knee dislocation. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with level I-IV evidence, reporting on human patients with acute grade III PLC injuries undergoing operative management within 4 weeks from injury, with subjective and/or objective outcomes (including varus stress examinations or varus stress radiographs) reported at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Two investigators independently performed the search by sequentially screening articles. Accepted definitions of varus stability on examination or stress radiographs and revision surgery were used to determine success and failure of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, consisting of 288 patients were included. Ten studies reported primary repair, while reconstruction techniques were reported in seven studies. Overall, 43% (n = 125/288) of injuries involved the PLC, ACL and PCL. Staged reconstruction was reported in 25% (n = 3/12) of studies. The Lysholm score was the most commonly reported outcome measure. An overall failure rate of 12.4% (n = 35/282) was observed. Surgical failure was significantly higher in patients undergoing repair (21.9%; n = 21/96) compared to reconstruction (7.1%; n = 6/84) (p = 0.0058). Return to sport was greater in patients undergoing reconstruction (100%; n = 22/22) compared to repair (94%; n = 48/51) (n.s). The most common post-operative complication was arthrofibrosis requiring manipulation under anesthesia (8.7%; n = 25/288). A total of 3.8% (n = 11/288) of patients underwent revision PLC reconstruction. CONCLUSION: There remains substantial heterogeneity in the surgical techniques of acute, grade III PLC injuries with an overall failure rate of 12.4%. Failure rates were significantly lower, and return to sport rates higher in patients undergoing PLC reconstruction compared to repair. The most common postoperative complication was arthrofibrosis requiring manipulation under anesthesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

More anterior placement of femoral tunnel position in ACL-R is associated with postoperative meniscus tears.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between tunnel position in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and postoperative meniscus tears. METHODS: This was a single institution, case-control study of 170 patients status-post ACL-R (2010-2019) separated into two matched groups (sex, age, BMI, graft type). Group 1-symptomatic, operative meniscus tears (both de novo and recurrent) after ACL-R. Group 2-no postoperative meniscus tears. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by 2 authors via lateral knee radiographs that were used to measure two ratios (a/t and b/h). Ratio a/t was defined as distance from the tunnel center to dorsal most subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle (a) divided by total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle along Blumensaat's line (t). The ratio b/h was defined as distance between the tunnel and Blumensaat's line (b) divided by maximum intercondylar notch height (h). Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare measurements between groups (alpha set at p < 0.05). RESULTS: Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 22 months. There were no significant demographic differences between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1-a/t was 32.0% (± 10.2), which was significantly more anterior than group 2, 29.3% (± 7.3; p < 0.05). There was no difference in average femoral tunnel ratio b/h or tibial tunnel placement between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A relationship exists between more anterior/less anatomic femoral tunnel position and the presence of recurrent or de novo, operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Surgeons performing ACL-R should strive for recreation of native anatomy via proper tunnel placement to maximize postoperative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.