Open latarjet procedure versus all-arthroscopic autologous tricortical iliac crest bone grafting for anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) Vol. 30; no. 3; p. 10225536221133946
• Main Authors: Razaeian, Sam, Tegtmeier, Katja, Zhang, Dafang, Bartsch, Stefan, Kalbe, Peter, Krettek, Christian, Hawi, Nael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-09-2022; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Arthroscopy - methods; Humans; Ilium - transplantation; Joint Instability - surgery; Pain; Range of motion; Recurrence; Retrospective Studies; Shoulder Dislocation - surgery; Shoulder Joint - surgery; Skin & tissue grafts; latarjet; arthroscopic iliac crest bone grafting; anterior instability; Glenoid bone loss
• ISSN: 1022-5536; 2309-4990
• DOI: 10.1177/10225536221133946

Purpose
The purpose of this study is to compare the open Latarjet procedure versus the all-arthroscopic autologous tricortical iliac crest bone grafting (AICBG) technique for recurrent anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss.
Methods
All open Latarjet and AICBG procedures for recurrent anterior-inferior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss performed at two institutions between September 2015 and April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a traumatic etiology, a glenoid surface deficiency >13.5%, and a minimum follow-up (FU) of 18 months. Primary outcomes included the subjective shoulder value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI), Rowe scores including subdomains, and the four subdomains of the Constant score (pain, activities of daily living, internal rotation, external rotation). Secondary outcomes were subjective shoulder instability, EQ-5D-3 L, pain level on the VAS, level of overall satisfaction, operative time, return-to-work rate, and return-to-sports rate.
Results
Forty-three patients were available for final analysis (Latarjet: n = 21; AICBG: n = 22) at an average FU of 34.9 months (range, 22–66 months). Both techniques provided good outcomes and improved stability. The Rowe score, Rowe-range of motion, and CS-internal rotation (p = 0.008, p<0.001, p = 0.001) were slightly better in the AICBG group. Furthermore, the WOSI physical symptoms subdomain was significantly better (p = 0.04) in the AICBG group, while its total score did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcomes besides operative time, which was significantly shorter in the Latarjet procedure group (p = 0.04). Overall complication rate was similar in both groups (Latarjet: 9.5% (n = 2), AICBG: 9.1% (n = 2)).
Conclusion
Open Latarjet and AICBG procedures provide comparable clinical outcomes except for significantly better Rowe score, Rowe-range of motion, WOSI physical symptoms subdomain, and internal rotation capacity in the AICBG group. However, these results should be carefully interpreted in the context of known minimal clinically important differences of these scores.