Jeffrey L Horinek1, Mariano E Menendez2, Pablo Narbona3, Alexandre Lädermann4, Johannes Barth5, Patrick J Denard6. 1. Oregon Shoulder Institute, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A. 2. Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Midwest Orthopedics at Rush, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 3. Department of Shoulder Surgery and Arthroscopy, Sanatorio Allende, Cardoba, Argentina. 4. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Clinique des Cèdres, Echirolles, France. 6. Oregon Shoulder Institute, Medford, Oregon, U.S.A.. Electronic address: pjdenard@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare functional outcome, return to sport, satisfaction, postoperative recurrence, and complications in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABR) to primary Latarjet. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing primary ABR or open Latarjet between 2013 and 2019 who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Baseline and two-year range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes (PROs: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: This study included 258 patients, including 70 ABRs and 188 Latarjet procedures. Baseline demographics, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean preop glenoid bone loss (GBL) (12.3% ± 10.9% vs 7.6% ± 9%; P < .001) and off-track lesions (23% vs 13%; P = .046) were higher in the ABR group, while preoperative GBL range was similar (0-42% vs 0-47%). Changes in the VAS (1.9 vs 0.9; P = .019) and WOSI (1096 vs 805; P < .001) were improved in ABR. The percentage of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference was improved in WOSI for ABR and PASS for ABR in SANE, VAS, and WOSI scores. The ABR cohort reported worse changes in external rotation (ER) (-4° vs +19°; P < .001). Return to sport among overhead and contact athletes favored ABR (91.5% vs 72.7%; P = .007). Satisfaction and recurrent dislocation were similar. Surgical complications were observed in 0% of ABR cases, compared to 5.9% in the Latarjet group. CONCLUSION: Primary ABR resulted in 2-year functional outcomes that were as good or superior to primary Latarjet, with higher return to sport for overhead and contact activities, fewer complications, and comparably low recurrence rates, even despite greater bipolar bone loss in the ABR cohort. However, this comes at the expense of decreased external rotation, which may be considered in individual patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare functional outcome, return to sport, satisfaction, postoperative recurrence, and complications in patients undergoing primary arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABR) to primary Latarjet. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing primary ABR or open Latarjet between 2013 and 2019 who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Baseline and two-year range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes (PROs: Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index [WOSI], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) recurrence, return to sport, satisfaction, and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: This study included 258 patients, including 70 ABRs and 188 Latarjet procedures. Baseline demographics, ROM, and PROs were similar. Mean preop glenoid bone loss (GBL) (12.3% ± 10.9% vs 7.6% ± 9%; P < .001) and off-track lesions (23% vs 13%; P = .046) were higher in the ABR group, while preoperative GBL range was similar (0-42% vs 0-47%). Changes in the VAS (1.9 vs 0.9; P = .019) and WOSI (1096 vs 805; P < .001) were improved in ABR. The percentage of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference was improved in WOSI for ABR and PASS for ABR in SANE, VAS, and WOSI scores. The ABR cohort reported worse changes in external rotation (ER) (-4° vs +19°; P < .001). Return to sport among overhead and contact athletes favored ABR (91.5% vs 72.7%; P = .007). Satisfaction and recurrent dislocation were similar. Surgical complications were observed in 0% of ABR cases, compared to 5.9% in the Latarjet group. CONCLUSION: Primary ABR resulted in 2-year functional outcomes that were as good or superior to primary Latarjet, with higher return to sport for overhead and contact activities, fewer complications, and comparably low recurrence rates, even despite greater bipolar bone loss in the ABR cohort. However, this comes at the expense of decreased external rotation, which may be considered in individual patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.