Advertisement

Arthroscopic versus open Latarjet: a step-by-step comprehensive and systematic review

  • Michael-Alexander MalahiasEmail author
  • Emmanouil Fandridis
  • Dimitrios Chytas
  • Efstathios Chronopulos
  • Emmanouil Brilakis
  • Emmanouil Antonogiannakis
General Review • SHOULDER - ARTHROSCOPY
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure significantly differs from the open procedure as for the clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes.

Methods

Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “shoulder” AND “anterior” AND “instability” AND “Latarjet”.

Results

From the 259 initial papers, we finally assessed five clinical studies which were eligible to our inclusion–exclusion criteria. The mean modified Coleman score for methodological deficiencies of the studies was 65.4/100, whereas it ranged from 53/100 to 77/100. The arthroscopic technique illustrated comparable results to the open technique regarding the postoperative recurrence rate. No significant difference was found amongst groups in relation to the postoperative osteoarthritis, infection rates, soft tissue healing, postoperative mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, mean Walch–Duplay score, fatty infiltration of the subscapularis muscle and posterior protrusion of the screw. The arthroscopic technique yielded significantly superior results as for the non-union rate of the graft, the total graft osteolysis and graft resorption, the mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score and the early postoperative pain.

Conclusions

Both the open and the arthroscopic Latarjet procedures led to satisfactory radiographic and clinical outcomes for the treatment of patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and significant glenoid bone loss. However, the overall quality of the studies ranged from low to moderate.

Level of evidence

Comprehensive and systematic review of level II–III therapeutic studies.

Keywords

Arthroscopic Latarjet Bristow–Latarjet Bone block procedures Glenoid bone loss Recurrent shoulder instability Open versus arthroscopic Latarjet 

Notes

Funding

This study has not received any kind of funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Latarjet M (1958) Technic of coracoid preglenoid arthroereisis in the treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder. Lyon Chir 54(04):604–607Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu Y, Jiang C, Song G (2017) Arthroscopic versus open Latarjet in the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with marked glenoid bone loss: a prospective comparative study. Am J Sports Med 45(7):1645–1653.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517693845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patte D, Bernageau J, Rodineau J, Gardes JC (1980) Unstable painful shoulders (authors’ translation). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 66(3):157–165Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Russo A, Grasso A, Arrighi A, Pistorio A, Molfetta L (2017) Accuracy of coracoid bone graft placement: open versus arthroscopic Latarjet. Joints 5(2):85–88.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1603934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatia S, Frank RM, Ghodara NS et al (2014) The outcomes and surgical techniques of the Latarjet procedure. Arthroscopy 30:227–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allain J, Goutallier D, Glorion C, Surgery J (1998) Long-term results of the Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:841–8526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ladermann A, Lubbeke A, Stern R et al (2013) Risk factors for dislocation arthropathy after Latarjet procedure: a long-term study. Int Orthop 37:1093–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1848-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walch G, Boileau P (2000) Latarjet–Bristow procedure for recurrent anterior instability. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 1:256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patte D, Debeyre J (1980) Luxations rιcidivantes de l’ιpaule. EMC Tech Chir Orthop 44265:44–52Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hovelius L, Eriksson K, Fredin H et al (1983) Recurrences after initial dislocation of the shoulder. Results of a prospective study of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hovelius L, Sandstrom B, Saebo M (2006) One hundred eighteen Bristow–Latarjet repairs for recurrent anterior dislocation of the shoulder prospectively followed for fifteen years: study II—the evolution of dislocation arthropathy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 15:279–289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kordasiewicz B, Kicinski M, Małachowsetki K, Wieczorek J, Chaberek S, Pomianowski S (2018) Comparative study of open and arthroscopic coracoid transfer for shoulder anterior instability (Latarjet)-computed tomography evaluation at a short term follow-up. Part II. Int Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3739-0 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lafosse L, Lejeune E, Bouchard A, Kakuda C, Gobezie R, Kochhar T (2007) The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy 23(11):1242 e1241-1245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lafosse L, Boyle S (2010) Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boileau P, Thilu CE, Mercier N et al (2014) Arthroscopic Bristow–Latarjet combined with bankart repair restores shoulder stability in patients with glenoid bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2413–2424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sambandam SN, Gul A, Priyanka P (2007) Analysis of methodological deficiencies of studies reporting surgical outcome following cemented total-joint arthroplasty of trapezio-metacarpal joint of the thumb. Int Orthop 31(5):639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328(7454):1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kordasiewicz B, Małachowski K, Kicinski M, Chaberek S, Pomianowski S (2017) Comparative study of open and arthroscopic coracoid transfer for shoulder anterior instability (Latarjet)—clinical results at short term follow-up. Int Orthop 41(5):1023–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3372-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marion B, Klouche S, Deranlot J, Bauer T, Nourissat G, Hardy P (2017) A prospective comparative study of arthroscopic versus mini-open Latarjet procedure with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 33(2):269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.06.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Metais P, Clavert P, Barth J et al (2016) Preliminary clinical outcomes of Latarjet-Patte coracoid transfer by arthroscopy vs. open surgery: prospective multicentre study of 390 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(8S):S271–S276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wellmann M, PetersenW Zantop T et al (2009) Open shoulder repair of osseous glenoid defects: biomechanical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure versus a contoured structural bone graft. Am J Sports Med 37:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508326714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nourissat G, Neyton L, Metais P et al (2016) Functional outcomes after open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedure: a prospective comparative study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(8S):S277–S279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cunningham G, Benchouk S, Kherad O, Lädermann A (2016) Comparison of arthroscopic and open Latarjet with a learning curve analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(2):540–545.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3910-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boileau P, Mercier N, Roussanne Y, Thelu CE, Old J (2010) Arthroscopic Bankart–Bristow–Latarjet procedure: the development and early results of a safe and reproducible technique. Arthroscopy 26(11):1434–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lafosse L, Boyle S, Gutierrez-Aramberri M, Shah A, Meller R (2010) Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Orthop Clin North Am 41(3):393–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saito H, Itoi E, Sugaya H, Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Tuoheti Y (2005) Location of the glenoid defect in shoulders with recurrent anterior dislocation. Am J Sports Med 33(6):889–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nourissat G, Delaroche C, Bouillet B, Doursounian L, Aim F (2014) Optimization of bone-block positioning in the Bristow–Latarjet procedure: a biomechanical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(5):509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maynou C, Cassagnaud X, Mestdagh H (2005) Function of subscapularis after surgical treatment for recurrent instability of the shoulder using a bone-block procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(8):1096–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J et al (1995) Fatty infiltration of disrupted rotator cuff muscles. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 62:415–422Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ekhtiari S, Horner NS, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Khan M (2018) The learning curve for the Latarjet procedure: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 6(7):2325967118786930.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118786930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Griesser MJ, Harris JD, Mccoy BW et al (2013) Complications and reoperations after Bristow–Latarjet shoulder stabilization: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22(2):286–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND et al Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD), 2008–2012 March 8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael-Alexander Malahias
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanouil Fandridis
    • 2
  • Dimitrios Chytas
    • 3
  • Efstathios Chronopulos
    • 3
  • Emmanouil Brilakis
    • 1
  • Emmanouil Antonogiannakis
    • 1
  1. 1.3rd Orthopaedic DepartmentHygeia HospitalAthensGreece
  2. 2.Hand-Upper Limb and Microsurgery DepartmentHospital KATAthensGreece
  3. 3.2nd Orthopaedic Department, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations