Laurent Casabianca1, Antoine Gerometta1, Audrey Massein2, Frederic Khiami1, Romain Rousseau1, Alexandre Hardy1, Hugues Pascal-Moussellard1, Philippe Loriaut3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Pierre and Marie Curie University, 47 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. 2. Department of Radiology, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Pierre and Marie Curie University, 47 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, Pierre and Marie Curie University, 47 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France. philippeloriaut@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is recently becoming an increasingly popular technique. Nevertheless, position and fusion of the autograft had not been well studied yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the positioning of the coracoid graft and the fusion rate on CT scan in the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. METHODS: The study design was a prospective series of 19 consecutive patients who received arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Radiological assessment on CT scan performed 3 months post-operatively included an analysis of the fusion and the position of the coracoid bone graft using a validated method. 02:30-04:20 was considered an ideal positioning in the sagittal view. In the axial view, the positioning was considered as flush, congruent, medial, too medial, or lateral. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 27.6 (±6.9). Mean operative time was of 161 min ±34.8. The fusion rate was of 78 %. Coracoid grafts were positioned 01:52 h (56° ± 14°) to 4:04 h (122° ± 12.5°). In the axial view, 32 % of the grafts positioning were considered as flush, 38 % as congruent, 30 % as medial, and 6 % too medial. No lateral position was noted. Two complications occurred, one graft fracture during screwing requiring opening conversion and an early case of osteolysis in a medial-positioned graft. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is a technically challenging technique that provides satisfactory fusion rate and graft positioning with a low complication rate. The clinical importance of this study lies in the observation that it is the first study to evaluate the position of the coracoid bone graft in arthroscopic Latarjet according to a detailed and validated method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is recently becoming an increasingly popular technique. Nevertheless, position and fusion of the autograft had not been well studied yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the positioning of the coracoid graft and the fusion rate on CT scan in the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. METHODS: The study design was a prospective series of 19 consecutive patients who received arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Radiological assessment on CT scan performed 3 months post-operatively included an analysis of the fusion and the position of the coracoid bone graft using a validated method. 02:30-04:20 was considered an ideal positioning in the sagittal view. In the axial view, the positioning was considered as flush, congruent, medial, too medial, or lateral. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 27.6 (±6.9). Mean operative time was of 161 min ±34.8. The fusion rate was of 78 %. Coracoid grafts were positioned 01:52 h (56° ± 14°) to 4:04 h (122° ± 12.5°). In the axial view, 32 % of the grafts positioning were considered as flush, 38 % as congruent, 30 % as medial, and 6 % too medial. No lateral position was noted. Two complications occurred, one graft fracture during screwing requiring opening conversion and an early case of osteolysis in a medial-positioned graft. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is a technically challenging technique that provides satisfactory fusion rate and graft positioning with a low complication rate. The clinical importance of this study lies in the observation that it is the first study to evaluate the position of the coracoid bone graft in arthroscopic Latarjet according to a detailed and validated method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Authors: H Thomazeau; O Courage; J Barth; C Pélégri; C Charousset; F Lespagnol; G Nourissat; S Audebert; S Guillo; B Toussaint; L Lafosse; J Bradel; D Veillard; P Boileau Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: L K Hovelius; B C Sandström; D L Rösmark; M Saebö; K H Sundgren; B G Malmqvist Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: P Randelli; C Fossati; C Stoppani; F R Evola; L De Girolamo Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Bartłomiej Kordasiewicz; Maciej Kicinski; Konrad Małachowski; Janusz Wieczorek; Sławomir Chaberek; Stanisław Pomianowski Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Gabriel Lateur; Regis Pailhe; Ramsay Refaie; Billy Jeremy Chedal Bornu; Mehdi Boudissa; Dominique Saragaglia Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Bartłomiej Kordasiewicz; Konrad Małachowski; Maciej Kicinski; Sławomir Chaberek; Stanisław Pomianowski Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 3.075