The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior guided system and suture-button fixation enables more precise bone block positioning in the axial plane versus anterior screws fixation.

PURPOSE: Adequate position of the bone block during arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is critical for an optimal functional outcome. However, this procedure is complex with a long learning curve. Our aim was to compare the bone block position between a dedicated glenoid posterior instrumentation and suture button fixation versus an anterior screw fixation, on a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan. METHOD: Seventy-nine consecutive patients operated on for an anterior shoulder instability were included in this retrospective study. The same surgeon performed arthroscopically the Latarjet procedure either with an anterior drilling and screw fixation (Group A), or with a specific posterior glenoid guide pin, a posterior drilling, and a suture cortical button fixation (Group B). Evaluations were made by two independent observers. The position was evaluated by CT scan in the axial and sagittal planes. Learning curves with operative time, complications and clinical outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included in Group A and 44 in Group B. In Group A, 27 bone blocks were flush (87.1%) and 38 in Group B (92.7%) (p < 0.01). In Group A, 72% of the bone block height was below the equator and 76%, in Group B (ns). The mean operating time was 123 ± 32.5 min in Group A and 95 ± 34.1 min in Group B (p < 0.0001). At the final follow-up, the mean aggregate Rowe score was respectively 94.6 ± 10.4 and 93.1 ± 9.8 points in Groups A and B. The mean aggregate Walch-Duplay score was respectively 94.2 ± 11.6 and 93.4 ± 10.6 points in Groups A and B. There were 11 complications (31.4%) in Group A and five complications (11.3%) in Group B (ns). CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with a posterior drilling guided system and suture-button fixation allows more precise positioning in the axial plane than with anterior drilling and screw fixation. This posterior-guided procedure could reduce intraoperative and short-term complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Comparing postoperative proprioception of the glenohumeral joint between the open and the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder proprioception, in which the anterior glenohumeral capsule plays a major role, is critical to the functioning of the shoulder. Consequently, most surgeons either do not resect or reinsert the anterior capsule in shoulder stabilization surgery. In the original open Latarjet procedure (OLP), the anterior capsule is preserved. However, in the all-arthroscopic Latarjet procedure (ALP), complete anterior capsule resection is recommended for better view and access to the coracoid. This raises the question if there is a postoperative difference in proprioception between these 2 procedures. Therefore, the aims of this study are (1) to assess the difference in postoperative proprioception between the operated and healthy sides after the OLP and ALP and (2) to compare the difference in postoperative proprioception on the operated side between the OLP and ALP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis including all patients who underwent a proprioception test after an OLP or ALP at our center. Collected baseline characteristics included sex, age at surgery, operated side, hand dominance, presence of a Hill-Sachs lesion, and time between surgery and the proprioception test. For the test, patients were positioned 1 meter from a wall. They were blindfolded and had to point at a target with a laser pointer taped to their index finger. The laser point was marked and the errors were measured horizontally and vertically and categorized as <4 cm, 4-8 cm, 8-16 cm, and >16 cm. RESULTS: Between April 2022 and April 2024, a total of 91 cases were identified, of which 24 underwent an OLP and 67 underwent an ALP. No significant difference was found in error distribution between the healthy and operated side after both the OLP (P = .30 horizontally, P = .67 vertically) and ALP (P = .20 horizontally, P = .34 vertically). Moreover, there was no significant difference in error distribution between the operated sides after the OLP vs. ALP (P = .52 horizontally; P = .61 vertically). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that postoperative proprioception is not significantly different between the operated and healthy sides after both the OLP and ALP, nor between the operated sides after the OLP vs. after the ALP. This might imply that completely resecting the anterior glenohumeral capsule does not have a detrimental effect on shoulder proprioception. However, these results are multifactorial and prospective studies are needed to better understand the regeneration potential of glenohumeral capsule mechanoreceptors and the importance of the anterior capsule for shoulder proprioception.

Arthroscopic Latarjet yields better union and prevention of instability compared to arthroscopic bony Bankart repair in shoulders with recurrent anterior instability: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To determine whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure or arthroscopic bony Bankart repair provide better outcomes in terms of rates of recurrent instability, non-union and complications, as well as clinical scores and range of motion. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane databases, applying the following keywords: "Arthroscopic bony Bankart" OR "Arthroscopic osseous Bankart" AND "Arthroscopic Latarjet" OR "Arthroscopic coracoid bone block". RESULTS: The systematic search returned 1465 records, of which 29 were included (arthroscopic bony Bankart repair, n = 16; arthroscopic Latarjet, n = 13). 37 datasets were included for data extraction, on 1483 shoulders. Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair had significantly higher instability rates (0.14; CI 0.10-0.18; vs 0.04; CI 0.02-0.06), significantly lower union rates (0.63; CI 0.28-0.91 vs 0.98; CI 0.93-1.00), and significantly lower pain on VAS (0.42; CI 0.17-0.67 vs 1.17; CI 0.96-1.38). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid bone loss, follow-up, complication rate, ROWE score, ASES score, external rotation, and anterior forward elevation between arthroscopic Latarjet and arthroscopic bony Bankart repair. CONCLUSION: Compared to arthroscopic Latarjet, arthroscopic bony Bankart repair results in significantly (i) higher rates of recurrent instability (14% vs 4%), (ii) lower union rates (63% vs 98%), but (iii) slightly lower pain on VAS (0.45 vs 1.17). There were no differences in complication rates, clinical scores, or postoperative ranges of motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Effect of scapular external rotation on the axillary nerve during the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: an anatomical investigation.

PURPOSE: The first purpose of this study is to measure the distance between the axillary nerve and the exit point of K-wires placed retrograde through the glenoid in the setting of an arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. The second objective is to evaluate whether manual external rotation of the scapula alters that distance. METHODS: In seven fresh-frozen specimens, two 2.0-mm K-wires were drilled through the glenoid using an arthroscopic Latarjet retrograde glenoid guide. These were drilled into the glenoid at the 7- and 8-o'clock positions (right shoulders) and at the 4- and 5-o'clock positions (left). K-wires were oriented parallel to the glenoid articular surface and perpendicular to the long superoinferior axis of the glenoid, 7 mm medial to the joint surface. Two independent evaluators measured the distances between the axillary nerve and the exit point of the K-wires in the horizontal plane (AKHS for the superior K-wire and AKHI for the inferior K-wire) and in the vertical plane (AKV). Measurements were taken with the scapula left free and were repeated with the scapula placed at 15° and 30° of external rotation. RESULTS: With the scapula left free, scapular external rotation was 34° ± 2.3°. In this position, the AKHS was 2.5 ± 1.6, 6.3 ± 1.2 mm at 15° of external rotation (ER) and 11.4 ± 1.4 mm at 30° ER. The AKHI distance was 0.37 ± 1.6, 3.4 ± 1.4 and 10.6 ± 2.1 mm, respectively, for the scapula left free, at 15° ER and 30° of ER. The AKV distances were, respectively, 0.12 ± 0.2, 4.9 ± 1.6 and 9.9 ± 1.7 mm. The increase in all distances was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increasing scapular external rotation significantly increases the distance between the axillary nerve and the exit point of the K-wires, increasing the margin of safety during this procedure. Therefore, increased external rotation of the scapula could be an effective tool to decrease the risk of iatrogenic axillary nerve injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cadaveric study, Level V.

Open Latarjet versus arthroscopic Latarjet: clinical results and cost analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results between open and arthroscopic Latarjet and perform a cost analysis of the two techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of articles present in PubMed and MEDLINE was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies concerning post-operative outcomes following Latarjet procedures for chronic anterior shoulder instability were selected for analysis. The clinical and radiographic results as well as the costs of the open and arthroscopic techniques were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles, describing a total of 1317 shoulders, met the inclusion criteria: 17 studies were related to open Latarjet, and 6 to the arthroscopic technique. Despite the heterogeneity of the evaluation scales, the clinical results seemed very satisfactory for both techniques. We detected a statistically significant difference in the percentage of bone graft healing in favour of the open technique (88.6 vs 77.6 %). Recurrent dislocation was more frequent following open surgery (3.3 % after open surgery vs 0.3 % after arthroscopy), but this finding was biased by the large difference in follow-up duration between the two techniques. The direct costs of the arthroscopic procedure were double in comparison to open surgery (€2335 vs €1040). A lack of data prevented evaluation of indirect costs and, therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The open and arthroscopic Latarjet techniques showed excellent and comparable clinical results. However, the much higher direct costs of the arthroscopic procedure do not seem, at present, to be justified by a benefit to the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The arthroscopic latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability: 5-year minimum follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure combines the benefits of arthroscopic surgery with the low rate of recurrent instability associated with the Latarjet procedure. Only short-term outcomes after arthroscopic Latarjet procedure have been reported. PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of recurrent instability and patient outcomes a minimum of 5 years after stabilization performed with the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Patients who underwent the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure before June 2008 completed a questionnaire to determine whether they had experienced a dislocation, subluxation, or further surgery. The patients also completed the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). RESULTS: A total of 62 of 87 patients (64/89 shoulders) were contacted for follow-up. Mean follow-up time was 76.4 months (range, 61.2-100.7 months). No patients had reported a dislocation since their surgery. One patient reported having subluxations since the surgery. Thus, 1 patient (1.59%) had recurrent instability after the procedure. The mean ± standard deviation aggregate WOSI score was 90.6% ± 9.4%. Mean WOSI domain scores were as follows: Physical Symptoms, 90.1% ± 8.7%; Sports/Recreation/Work, 90.3% ± 12.9%; Lifestyle, 93.7% ± 9.8%; and Emotions, 88.7% ± 17.3%. CONCLUSION: The rate of recurrent instability after arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is low in this series of patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Patient outcomes as measured by the WOSI are good.