Management of the Failed Latarjet Procedure: Outcomes of Revision Surgery With Fresh Distal Tibial Allograft.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address. Complications related to this procedure include large amounts of bone loss, bone resorption, and issues with retained hardware that necessitate the need for revision surgery.
PURPOSE: To determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure with fresh distal tibial allograft. STUDY
DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent revision of a failed Latarjet procedure with distal tibial allograft were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, duration of instability, number of prior surgeries, examination findings, plain radiographic and computed tomography (CT) data, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) classification. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsular release with subsequent repair, and fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes before and after revision were assessed according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum 4 months after surgery.
RESULTS: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with a mean age of 25.5 years (range, 19-38 years) and a mean follow-up time of 47 months (range, 36-60 months) after revision with distal tibial allograft. Before distal tibial allograft augmentation, the mean percentage glenoid bone loss was 30.3% (range, 25%-49%). All patients after their Latarjet stabilization had recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31, 35.5%) or subluxation (20/31, 64.5%), and all patients had symptoms consistent with recurrent shoulder instability upon physical examination. Radiographs demonstrated 2 fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade was 0.5 (range, 0-3), and CT scans revealed that a mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 37%-100%). Patient-reported outcome scores improved significantly pre- to postoperatively for ASES (40 to 92, P = .001), SANE (44 to 91, P = .001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, P = .001). There were no cases of recurrence, and a final CT scan of the distal tibial revision demonstrated a complete union at the glenoid-distal tibial allograft interface in 92% of patients.
CONCLUSION: The majority of the failed Latarjet procedures included in this study had near-complete resorption of the coracoid graft and hardware complications. At a minimum follow-up time of 36 months, patients who underwent revision treatment for a failed Latarjet procedure with a fresh distal tibial allograft demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and near-complete osseous union at the glenoid-allograft interface. Although patients evaluated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address, fresh distal tibial allograft augmentation is a viable and highly effective revision procedure to treat this patient population.