Outcomes at Long-term Follow-up After Open Latarjet Versus Open Bankart Repair in Rugby Players.

Background: Because rugby is a collision sport, it exposes players to a high risk of recurrence after anterior shoulder stabilization. Therefore, the choice of surgical procedure warrants close attention in order to optimize the time to return to sport and the stability of the shoulder throughout the player's career. Hypothesis: The open Latarjet procedure would allow for a faster return to play and provide a lower rate of recurrence than the open Bankart repair at long-term follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 62 competitive rugby players who had undergone an anterior shoulder instability procedure and had at least 5 years of follow-up data. A total of 32 players treated with an open Bankart repair (BK group) were compared with 30 players (31 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure (LT group). Outcomes between groups were compared with the Rowe score, Walch-Duplay score, recurrence rate, and osteoarthritis evaluation on plain radiograph (Samilson classification). Results: The recurrence rate was significantly higher at 18.8% for the BK group (mean follow-up, 6.9 ± 1.7 years) compared with 3.3% for the LT group (mean follow-up, 6.2 ± 1.4 years) (P = .04). No postoperative complications occurred in the BK group, whereas 1 infection and 1 hematoma required a second surgery in the LT group (P = .14). In the BK and LT groups, 97% and 90% of players, respectively, were able to return to rugby at the same level or higher (P = .27), at a mean time of 8 and 6.3 months, respectively (P = .03). The mean Rowe and Walch-Duplay scores were not significantly different between the groups; however, the osteoarthritis rate was significantly higher in the BK versus the LT group (68% vs 38%, respectively; P = .03); 23% of patients, all in the BK group, had Samilson grade 2 osteoarthritis. Conclusion: The open Latarjet procedure outperformed the open Bankart procedure in terms of stability, time to return to play, and radiological outcomes at long-term follow-up in competitive rugby players.

Does the Surgical Approach Influence the Canal Fill of the Proximal Femur for Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Choosing the right size of the stem is crucial for uncemented hip arthroplasty. Undersizing can lead to early loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture due to femoral implant insertion, and/or osteointegration failure. The main objective of this study was to find a correlation between the surgical approach and the intramedullary prosthetic canal fill ratio (CFR) of the uncemented femoral implant. The hypothesis of this work was that the surgical approach does not influence the stem sizing during hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In this consecutive series, we analyzed the radiological images of 183 patients who underwent primary hip arthroplasty with 4 different surgical approaches. Dimensions of the implant were evaluated by radiographic measurement of the CFR. In order to assess the shape of the femur, we measured the canal flare index on the preoperative radiographs, and the canal calcar ratio was also measured to establish the shape of the femur according to Dorr's classification. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the surgical approach and the CFR measured at 4 different levels (CFR 1, 2, 3, and 4) on the postoperative radiograph. When the shape of the femur was assessed by canal flare index, there was no significant difference in implant, whether the femur had a stovepipe canal shape or a champagne-fluted canal shape. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the surgical approach in hip arthroplasty does not influence the canal fill. Therefore, the surgical approach does not factor in undersizing the femoral implant. Despite some difficulties in the exposure of the medullary shaft described by some authors, the anterior approach is not a risk factor for undersizing an anatomical femoral stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Is subtalar arthroereisis a good procedure in adult-acquired flatfoot? A systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present systematic literature review was to determine results and complications in subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot. METHOD: A search of the PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane and Embase databases used MeSH terms "arthroereisis" AND "flatfoot" OR "adult-acquired flatfoot" OR "pes planovalgus" OR "pes planus". Two of the authors analyzed 125 articles. After reading titles and Abstracts, 105 articles were read in full text and their references were analyzed. Finally, 12 articles were selected and divided into 2 groups: isolated and associated arthroereisis. RESULTS: Improvement in functional scores was greater in associated arthroereisis. Whether isolated or associated, arthroereisis achieved radiologic correction. However, the rate of complications was high, mainly concerning tarsal sinus pain. CONCLUSION: Subtalar arthroereisis for stage-2 adult-acquired flatfoot is rarely performed in isolation. When it is associated to other procedures, good radiologic and clinical results can be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Contribution of the remaining attachment index in the management of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Implant fixation assessment following Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture is a major decision factor for internal fixation and/or implant revision. The main aim of the present study was to assess the correlation between radiographic Remaining Attachment Index (RAI) and risk of implant loosening at last follow-up following internal fixation of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A multicentre retrospective study included 50 patients with Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture with uncemented femoral stem between 2013 and 2019. Preoperative radiographs were analysed independently by 2 senior orthopedic surgeons, distinguishing 2 groups: RAI>2/3 versus<2/3. Postoperative and last follow-up radiographs were then screened for signs of complete femoral component loosening. RESULTS: Median age was 89 years (range: 36-99 years). Two RAI>2/3 patients showed implant loosening (8%) versus 9 RAI<2/3 patients (36%), disclosing a significant correlation between early loosening and RAI<2/3 (p=0.005). Interobserver agreement for both radiographic RAI and radiographic loosening assessment at last follow-up was 98% with kappa correlation coefficient 0.96 [range: 0.88-1]. CONCLUSION: Remaining Attachment Index<2/3 in Vancouver B1 periprosthetic hip fracture was a risk factor for early implant loosening after isolated internal fixation. In these often frail elderly patients, first-line implant exchange is to be considered in the light of the risk/benefit ratio. The present results confirm the need for rigorous preoperative radiographic work-up of the remaining attachment area in Vancouver B1 fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.