Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Latarjet has become an increasingly popular treatment option for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. With the reported complication rates for primary Latarjet surgery, there are concerns about the complications of Latarjet as a revision surgery. It remains unclear if poor results after previous surgical management can be improved with revision Latarjet as well as with primary Latarjet. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on 3 databases for studies that compared primary Latarjet with revision Latarjet used after failed arthroscopic stabilization or failed free bone block procedures. From the included studies, demographic data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included for data analysis. Compared with the primary Latarjet cohort, revision Latarjet cohorts had a higher infection rate (1.2% vs. 2.6%; RR 0.46, P = .039). The primary Latarjet group showed a greater rate of return to sport (89.7% vs. 80.5%; RR 1.12, P = .41) and less subjective feeling of instability (12.6% vs. 20.9%; RR 0.60, P = .085) compared with the revision Latarjet group; however, this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in complication rates, reoperation, recurrence, and range of motion between primary Latarjet and revision Latarjet groups. Clinical outcome scores such as visual analog scale and Rowe scores were not significantly different between the cohorts. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment.

Outcomes of acute vs. delayed reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

HYPOTHESIS: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become an increasingly popular treatment option for proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. There is however contradictory evidence on the impact of timing of RSA on patient outcomes. It remains unclear if poor results after initial nonsurgical or surgical management can be improved with delayed RSA. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of acute RSA and delayed RSA for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed on 4 databases for studies that compared acute RSA with RSA used after prior nonoperative or operative treatment. Studies with a mean cohort age of <65 years were excluded. Demographical data, clinical outcome scores, range of motion measurements, and postoperative complications were collected from the included studies. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included for data analysis. Compared with delayed RSA cohorts, acute RSA cohorts had higher forward flexion (124.3° vs. 114.9°; P = .019), external rotation (24.7° vs. 20.2°; P = .041), and abduction (113.2° vs. 99.8°; P = .03). Compared with RSA after conservative management, acute RSA had greater external rotation (29.9° vs. 21.4°; P = .043). The acute RSA cohort had significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (76.4 vs. 68.2; P = .025) and Constant-Murley scores (65.6 vs. 57.3; P = .002) compared with the delayed RSA cohort. Subgroup analyses showed significantly greater Constant-Murley (64.9 vs. 56.9; P = .020) and Simple Shoulder Test scores (8.8 vs. 6.8; P = .031) with acute RSA compared with RSA after conservative treatment. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was higher in the acute RSA cohort compared with RSA after open reduction internal fixation (77.9 vs. 63.5; P = .008). The overall complication rate per 100 patient-years was 11.7 for the acute RSA cohort and 18.5 for the delayed RSA cohort (risk ratio: 0.55; P = .015). CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, acute RSA presents better clinical outcome measures and range of motion measurements, with decreased complication rates than RSA performed after prior nonoperative or operative treatment.