Primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the setting of previously failed Bankart repair: a systematic review
Mark P. Karavan, Eoghan T. Hurley, Frederic Baker Mills, Ignacio Pasqualini, Luciano Andrés Rossi, Jonathan F. Dickens, Oke Anakwenze, Hannan Mullett, Peter J. Millett, Christopher S. Klifto
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to compare the outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair versus those undergoing the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A systematic search in Pubmed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Cohort studies comparing outcomes in the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery versus the Latarjet procedure in the setting of a previously failed Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: Ten studies with 1913 patients were included. There was a significantly lower rate of recurrent instability in those with a Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 12.1%, p = 0.007). There was also a significantly lower rate of complications with the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (6.2% vs 10.2%, p = 0.03). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the rate of revision surgery in favour of the Latarjet procedure as a primary surgery (4.8% vs 10.9%, p = 0.02). However, there were similar rates of redislocations (2.8% vs 3.4%, p = 0.82) and return to play (67.7% vs 78.5%, p = 0.30) between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: This study found that the Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for a previously failed Bankart repair resulted in higher rates of complications, recurrent instability, and revisions than the Latarjet procedure performed as a primary procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Level III studies.