Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review.

dc.contributor.author

Lau, Brian C

dc.contributor.author

Johnston, Tyler R

dc.contributor.author

Gregory, Bonnie P

dc.contributor.author

Bejarano Pineda, Lorena

dc.contributor.author

Wu, Mark

dc.contributor.author

Fletcher, Amanda N

dc.contributor.author

Hu, Jessica H

dc.contributor.author

Ledbetter, Leila

dc.contributor.author

Riboh, Jonathan C

dc.date.accessioned

2024-02-01T19:37:24Z

dc.date.available

2024-02-01T19:37:24Z

dc.date.issued

2020-05

dc.description.abstract

Background

Primary shoulder stabilization is successful, but there continues to be a risk of recurrence after operative repair, particularly in the young athlete. It is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes after various revision stabilization techniques to best counsel patients and manage expectations.

Purpose

To analyze recurrent instability and revision surgery rates in patients who underwent revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization procedures with either arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction.

Study design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of level 2 to 4 evidence studies using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization (arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. The rate of recurrent instability, rate of revision surgery, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were extracted and reported. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score.

Results

A total of 37 studies met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis: 20 studies evaluated arthroscopic repair, 8 evaluated open repair, 5 evaluated Latarjet procedure, 3 evaluated bone block, and 2 evaluated capsular reconstruction. There was 1 study included in both arthroscopic and Latarjet procedures, for a total of 1110 revision cases. There was 1 level 2 study, and the remainder were level 3 or 4 with poor Downs and Black scores. Participants analyzed were most commonly young (weighted mean age, 26.1 years) and male (78.4%). The weighted mean clinical follow-up after revision surgery was 47.8 months. The weighted mean rate of recurrent instability was 3.8% (n = 245) after the Latarjet procedure, 13.4% (n = 260) after open repair, 16.0% (n = 531) after arthroscopic repair, 20.8% (n = 72) after bone block, and 31.0% (n = 35) after capsular reconstruction. The weighted mean rate of additional revision surgery was 0.0% after bone block, 0.02% after the Latarjet procedure, 9.0% after arthroscopic repair, 9.3% after open repair, and 22.8% after capsular reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes and objective measures of range of motion and strength improved with all revision techniques.

Conclusion

The current review identifies a deficiency in the literature pertaining to consistent meaningful outcomes and the effect of bone loss after revision shoulder stabilization. Published studies demonstrate, however, that revision shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or bone block techniques yielded satisfactory objective and patient-reported outcomes. The Latarjet procedure exhibited the lowest recurrent instability rate. This study confirms that recurrent instability remains a common problem, despite revision shoulder stabilization. The quality of research in revision shoulder stabilization remains poor, and higher quality studies are needed to establish best practices for treatment of this complex problem.
dc.identifier

10.1177_2325967120922571

dc.identifier.issn

2325-9671

dc.identifier.issn

2325-9671

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/30094

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

SAGE Publications

dc.relation.ispartof

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1177/2325967120922571

dc.rights.uri

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

dc.subject

outcomes

dc.subject

recurrent instability

dc.subject

revision

dc.subject

shoulder instability

dc.title

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Ledbetter, Leila|0000-0002-5206-8002

pubs.begin-page

2325967120922571

pubs.issue

5

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.organisational-group

Staff

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Orthopaedic Surgery

pubs.organisational-group

Medical Center Library & Archives

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

8

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization A Systematic Review.pdf
Size:
253.74 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format