Journal of ISAKOS : joint disorders & orthopaedic sports medicine · 2023
Primary Latarjet procedure versus Latarjet in the setting of previously failed Bankart repair: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karavan Mark P, Hurley Eoghan T, Mills F Baker, Pasqualini Ignacio, Rossi Luciano, Dickens Jonathan F, Anakwenze Oke, Mullett Hannan, Millett Peter J, Klifto Christopher S
Аннотация
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.
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.