TY - JOUR
T1 - Revision anterior glenohumeral instability
T2 - is arthroscopic treatment an option?
AU - O'Neill, Dillon C.
AU - Christensen, Garrett
AU - Kawakami, Jun
AU - Burks, Robert T.
AU - Greis, Patrick E.
AU - Tashjian, Robert Z.
AU - Chalmers, Peter N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors
PY - 2020/6
Y1 - 2020/6
N2 - Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent revision surgery for shoulder instability, including both revision arthroscopic repair and Latarjet. Methods: This study included patients who underwent revision of a prior arthroscopic labral repair to arthroscopic labral repair or Latarjet at our institution from 2012 to 2017. After collection of preoperative demographic data, preoperative 3-dimensional imaging was reviewed to determine percent glenoid bone loss (%GBL) and to determine whether each shoulder was on-track or off-track. Patients were contacted to obtain postoperative patient-reported outcome metrics including visual analog scale pain, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and instability recurrence (full dislocation, subluxation, or subjective apprehension) data at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Results: Of 62 patients who met criteria, 45 patients were able to be contacted. Of them, 21 underwent revision arthroscopy and 24 underwent a Latarjet procedure. In the revision arthroscopy group, 5 of 15 had %GBL >20% and 4 of 21 were contact athletes. In the Latarjet group, 11 of 22 had %GBL >20% and 5 of 24 were contact athletes. Of 21 revision arthroscopy patients, 8 underwent concomitant remplissage. Eight of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 7 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported instability postoperatively. Three of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 2 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported full dislocations postoperatively. Zero patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 1 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Our results suggest that both revision Latarjet and arthroscopic stabilization can be of benefit in select circumstances. However, in revision settings, postoperative instability symptoms are common with both procedures.
AB - Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent revision surgery for shoulder instability, including both revision arthroscopic repair and Latarjet. Methods: This study included patients who underwent revision of a prior arthroscopic labral repair to arthroscopic labral repair or Latarjet at our institution from 2012 to 2017. After collection of preoperative demographic data, preoperative 3-dimensional imaging was reviewed to determine percent glenoid bone loss (%GBL) and to determine whether each shoulder was on-track or off-track. Patients were contacted to obtain postoperative patient-reported outcome metrics including visual analog scale pain, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and instability recurrence (full dislocation, subluxation, or subjective apprehension) data at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Results: Of 62 patients who met criteria, 45 patients were able to be contacted. Of them, 21 underwent revision arthroscopy and 24 underwent a Latarjet procedure. In the revision arthroscopy group, 5 of 15 had %GBL >20% and 4 of 21 were contact athletes. In the Latarjet group, 11 of 22 had %GBL >20% and 5 of 24 were contact athletes. Of 21 revision arthroscopy patients, 8 underwent concomitant remplissage. Eight of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 7 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported instability postoperatively. Three of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 2 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported full dislocations postoperatively. Zero patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 1 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Our results suggest that both revision Latarjet and arthroscopic stabilization can be of benefit in select circumstances. However, in revision settings, postoperative instability symptoms are common with both procedures.
KW - Anterior shoulder instability
KW - Case Series
KW - Glenohumeral instability
KW - Level IV
KW - Treatment Study
KW - glenoid bone loss
KW - revision Latarjet
KW - revision arthroscopic Bankart repair
KW - revision shoulder stabilization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105521423&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105521423&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.02.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.02.012
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85105521423
VL - 4
SP - 287
EP - 291
JO - JSES International
JF - JSES International
SN - 2468-6026
IS - 2
ER -