Arthroscopic Latarjet Versus Arthroscopic Free Bone Block Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Proportional Meta-analysis Comparing Recurrence, Complication, and Reoperation Rates

Author:

Cozzolino Andrea1ORCID,de Giovanni Roberto1,Malfi Paolofrancesco1,Bernasconi Alessio1,Scarpa Simona1,Smeraglia Francesco1,Russo Raffaele12,Mariconda Massimo1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

2. Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy

Abstract

Background: Several arthroscopic glenoid bone augmentation techniques have been introduced to treat patients affected by anterior shoulder instability associated with critical bone loss. The efficacy of the different arthroscopic bony procedures has not been compared yet. Purpose: To compare the recurrence, complication, and reoperation rates of the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) and arthroscopic free bone block (ABB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify clinical studies reporting the outcomes of the AL and ABB procedures. The following search phrases were used: “Arthroscopic” AND “Bone Block” OR “Bone Graft,” and “Arthroscopic” AND “Glenoid Augmentation” OR “Glenoid Reconstruction,” and “Arthroscopic” AND “Latarjet” OR “Coracoid Graft” OR “Coracoid Transfer.” Exclusion criteria were <24 months of minimum follow-up, sample size <10 cases, revision after previous glenoid bone grafting, epilepsy, and multidirectional instability. Data regarding the study design, patient characteristics, surgical technique, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A proportional meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication, recurrence, and reoperation rates between the 2 groups. Multiple subgroup analyses were performed to analyze the incidence of each complication and assess the weight of different fixation methods (in the whole cohort) or different graft types (in the ABB group). The modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: Of 5010 potentially relevant studies, 18 studies regarding the AL procedure (908 cases) and 15 studies regarding the ABB procedure (469 cases) were included. The 2 groups were comparable in age ( P = .07), sex ( P = .14), glenoid bone loss ( P = .14), number of preoperative dislocations ( P = .62), proportion of primary and revision procedures ( P = .95), length of follow-up ( P = .81), modified Coleman Methodology Score ( P = .21), and level of evidence ( P = .49). There was no difference in the recurrence ( P = .88), reoperation ( P = .79), and complication ( P = .08) rates. The subgroup analyses showed a higher rate of hardware-related complications for screw fixation compared with flexible fixation ( P = .01). Conclusion: The AL and ABB procedures had similar recurrence, reoperation, and complication rates. Screw fixation of the bone graft was related to an increased risk of complications compared with flexible fixation. Registration: CRD42022368153 (PROSPERO).

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3