Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: Early Postsurgical Complications for Primary Coracoid Transfer Versus Revision Coracoid Transfer After Failed Prior Stabilization. Issue 6 (12th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Updegrove, Gary F.; Buckley, Patrick S.; Cox, Ryan M.; Selverian, Stephen; Patel, Manan S.; Abboud, Joseph A.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 8:Issue 6(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-06-12
• Subjects: Bankart -- labrum -- Latarjet -- instability -- complication -- revision; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967120924628
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: The Latarjet procedure (coracoid transfer) is often used to successfully treat failed instability procedures. However, given the reported increased complication rates in primary Latarjet surgery, there is a heightened concern for complications in performing the Latarjet procedure as revision surgery. Purpose: To evaluate the early outcomes and complications of the Latarjet procedure as primary surgery compared with revision surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 157 patients were included and retrospectively reviewed: 103 patients in the revision group and 54 patients in the primary group. Patients were evaluated by physical examination findings as well as by documentation of complications and reoperations extracted from their electronic medical records. Results: The mean follow-up was 7.8 ± 11.0 months for the primary group and 7.0 ± 13.2 months for the revision group. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates between the primary and revision groups (16.7% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = .139). The complication rate was significantly higher in patients in the revision group who had undergone a prior open procedure compared with those who had undergone only arthroscopic procedures (30.0% vs 4.1%, respectively; P < .001). Of those patients who sustained a complication, 7 of the 9 underwent a reoperation in the primary group (13.0%), and 7 of the 9 did so in the revision group (6.8%); the risk of reoperations was not different between groups ( P = .198). There were 4 patients in the primary group (7.4%) and 5 patients in the revision group (4.9%) who experienced recurrent dislocations during the follow-up period ( P = .513). There was no difference in postoperative range of motion. Conclusion: The Latarjet procedure is a reasonable option for the treatment of failed arthroscopic instability repair with an early complication rate similar to that found in primary Latarjet surgery.