JSES International (Jun 2020)

Revision anterior glenohumeral instability: is arthroscopic treatment an option?

  • Dillon C. O'Neill, MD,
  • Garrett Christensen, BA,
  • Jun Kawakami, MD, PhD,
  • Robert T. Burks, MD,
  • Patrick E. Greis, MD,
  • Robert Z. Tashjian, MD,
  • Peter N. Chalmers, MD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 2
pp. 287 – 291

Abstract

Read online

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the short-term outcomes for patients who underwent revision surgery for shoulder instability, including both revision arthroscopic repair and Latarjet. Methods: This study included patients who underwent revision of a prior arthroscopic labral repair to arthroscopic labral repair or Latarjet at our institution from 2012 to 2017. After collection of preoperative demographic data, preoperative 3-dimensional imaging was reviewed to determine percent glenoid bone loss (%GBL) and to determine whether each shoulder was on-track or off-track. Patients were contacted to obtain postoperative patient-reported outcome metrics including visual analog scale pain, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and instability recurrence (full dislocation, subluxation, or subjective apprehension) data at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Results: Of 62 patients who met criteria, 45 patients were able to be contacted. Of them, 21 underwent revision arthroscopy and 24 underwent a Latarjet procedure. In the revision arthroscopy group, 5 of 15 had %GBL >20% and 4 of 21 were contact athletes. In the Latarjet group, 11 of 22 had %GBL >20% and 5 of 24 were contact athletes. Of 21 revision arthroscopy patients, 8 underwent concomitant remplissage. Eight of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 7 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported instability postoperatively. Three of 21 patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 2 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group reported full dislocations postoperatively. Zero patients in the revision arthroscopy group and 1 of 21 patients in the Latarjet group underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Our results suggest that both revision Latarjet and arthroscopic stabilization can be of benefit in select circumstances. However, in revision settings, postoperative instability symptoms are common with both procedures.

Keywords