Arthroscopic versus open Latarjet: a step-by-step comprehensive and systematic review
- 156 Downloads
To investigate whether arthroscopic Latarjet procedure significantly differs from the open procedure as for the clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes.
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”.
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.
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.
KeywordsArthroscopic Latarjet Bristow–Latarjet Bone block procedures Glenoid bone loss Recurrent shoulder instability Open versus arthroscopic Latarjet
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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 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
- 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
- 9.Patte D, Debeyre J (1980) Luxations rιcidivantes de l’ιpaule. EMC Tech Chir Orthop 44265:44–52Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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