关节镜下内引流联合或不联合囊壁切除治疗腘窝囊肿临床疗效的Meta分析

目的运用Meta分析的方法探讨比较关节镜下内引流联合或不联合囊壁切除两种术式治疗腘窝囊肿的临床疗效。 方法使用计算机检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMBASE、中国知网和万方等数据库,检索时间从2016年08月到2021年08月,检索内容为关节镜下内引流联合或不联合囊壁切除治疗腘窝囊肿的临床对照研究。依据纳入标准及排除标准选取检索文献,然后采用Newcastle Ottawa Scale（NOS）文献质量评价量表及Cochrane手册中偏倚评估标准对纳入文献资料进行质量评估。应用Review Manager5.4软件对汇编的数据结果进行分析,比较关节镜下内引流联合或不联合囊壁切除两种术式治疗腘窝囊肿的临床疗效差异。 结果最终纳入9项研究,共494例患者,其中关节镜下内引流组256例,关节镜下内引流联合囊壁切除组248例。Meta分析结果显示：关节镜下单纯内引流组术后Lysholm评分[MD=-0.49,（95% CI：-2.09,1.11）,P=0.55]、术后Rauschning-Lindgren分级[OR=0.54,（95% CI：0.28,1.04）,P=0.06]及住院时间[MD=-0.29,（95% CI：-0.73,0.14）,P=0.19]均与关节镜下内引流联合囊壁切除组无差异;内引流组术后并发症发生率低于囊壁切除组[OR=0.26,（95% CI：0.10,0.65）,P=0.004],内引流组手术时间[MD=-11.72,（95% CI：-13.69,-9.76）,P<0.01]及手术切口长度[MD=-5.94,（95% CI：-11.05,-0.83）,P=0.02]均短于囊壁切除组,而囊壁切除组术后复发率则低于内引流组[OR=3.32,（95% CI：1.82,6.06）,P<0.01],两者差异有统计学意义。 结论关节镜下内引流联合或不联合囊壁切除治疗腘窝囊肿临床结果都较满意,与关节镜下单纯内引流相比,联合囊壁切除术后复发率更低,但术后并发症的发生率较高、手术时间较长。     

切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳临床疗效的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析比较切开与关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳的临床疗效差异。方法 :计算机检索PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane、中国知网、万方、中国生物医学文献数据库和维普数据库,以查找关于切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳的回顾性或前瞻性队列研究或随机对照试验。选择二分类变量,如术后复发率、术中及术后并发症发生率;以及连续型变量,如肩关节外旋活动度,Walch-Duplay评分,Rowe评分,西安大略肩关节不稳指数(Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index,WOSI)评分,术后视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS),术后患者焦虑程度,手术时间和螺钉置入角度等结局指标进行分析。采用NOS偏倚风险评估标准(Cochrane协作网推荐)评价回顾性或前瞻性队列研究的文献质量,随机对照试验的质量评价采用改良Jadad量表。由2人独立进行文献筛选、文献质量评价及数据提取。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:(1)共纳入9篇文献,其中8篇回顾性队列研究和1篇前瞻性队列研究,研究证据级别较低,共纳入956例患者,其中切开Latarjet手术436例,关节镜下Latarjet手术520例。(2)Meta分析结果显示,切开组术后肩关节WOSI评分优于关节镜下组(MD=93.74,95%CI:26.00~161.49,P=0.007),且螺钉置入角度明显小于关节镜组(MD=-6.44,95%CI:-12.08~0.81,P=0.02)。(3)切开Latarjet手术复发率低于关节镜下Latarjet手术,但二者差异无统计学意义(OR=0.84,95%CI:0.23~3.05,P=0.79)。(4)在肩关节外旋活动度、Walch-Duplay评分、Rowe评分、术后视觉模VAS评分、术后患者焦虑程度和手术时间等方面切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术之间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:切开和关节镜下Latarjet手术治疗肩关节前向不稳均能取得良好的临床疗效,且术后复发脱位率及并发症较低。切开和镜下Latarjet均为治疗肩关节前向不稳的可靠手术方式。但镜下手术较切开手术学习曲线长,需要一定量的手术积累,因此临床医生可根据手术技术熟练程度、喜好和患者的情况等因素选择镜下或切开手术。但研究中所纳入的文献皆为队列研究,证据等级不高,缺少随机对照试验,且样本量较小,未来仍需要大样本量、高证据等级的随机对照研究来确定两者之间的疗效差异。     

关于骨髓刺激技术在肩袖撕裂治疗作用的系统评价及Meta分析

目的评估骨髓刺激技术在改善肩袖愈合及功能恢复中的作用。 方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、Medline、Embase、中国知网（CNKI）、维普（VIP）、万方及中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）等数据库中关于应用骨髓刺激技术和单纯肩袖修复的比较研究，包括临床随机对照和回顾性队列研究。手工检索纳入研究的参考文献。提取各研究中指标数据，包括总体再撕裂率，大到巨大肩袖撕裂的再撕裂率，术后肩关节活动度（range of motion，ROM），视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS），Constant-Murley肩关节功能评分（Constant-Murley score，CMS）,加州福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校评分（University of California, Los Angeles shoulder rating scale，UCLA）,美国肩肘外科协会评分（American shoulder and elbow surgeons score，ASES）,手臂、肩膀和手的残疾问卷（disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire ，DASH）各项功能评分。运用Revman 5.3软件对其进行分析和处理。 结果共纳入2篇随机对照研究、6篇回顾性队列研究、2篇非对照回顾性研究共10篇文献进行系统回顾，Meta分析只纳入前8篇文献，患者共641例。Meta分析结果显示，与单纯肩袖修复相比，结合骨髓刺激技术能明显改善肩袖总体愈合效果[OR = 0.42，95% CI（0.28，0.63），P< 0.0001]，大到巨大撕裂的肩袖修复术后再撕裂率也明显减少[OR = 0.28, 95% CI（0.13, 0.58）, P = 0.0007]。而在肩关节疼痛VAS评分[SMD = -0.63, 95% CI（-1.40, 0.14）, P = 0.11], ROM外旋[SMD = 0.05, 95% CI（-0.22, 0.32）, P = 0.70]、前屈[SMD = 0.10, 95% CI（-0.17, 0.37）, P = 0.47]，CMS评分[SMD = 0.12, 95% CI（-0.09, 0.32）, P = 0.26]，UCLA评分[SMD = -0.04, 95% CI（-0.29, 0.21）, P = 0.76]，ASES评分[SMD= -0.06，95% CI（-0.33, 0.21）, P = 0.67]及DASH评分[SMD = -0.15, 95% CI（-0.43, 0.13）, P = 0.29]等方面的差异均无统计学意义。 结论与单纯肩袖修复相比，结合骨髓刺激技术能明显改善肩袖修复能力，尤其值得关注的是该技术能够促进大到巨大撕裂肩袖的愈合，而在术后肩关节疼痛、ROM及功能方面未见明显差异。     

关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定临床疗效的Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析比较关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定的临床疗效。方法检索自1980-06—2018-07收录在PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、中国知网、万方等数据库关于比较关节镜与开放手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定临床疗效的相关文献,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。比较关节镜手术组和开放手术组手术时间、术中神经损伤发生率、术后肩关节前方不稳定复发率、感染发生率、再手术率、恢复运动与工作患者比例,以及末次随访时Constant评分、Rowe评分。结果纳入17篇文献,共1 588例,关节镜手术组918例,开放手术组670例。Meta分析结果显示,与开放手术组比,关节镜手术组手术时间更短,术中神经损伤发生率更低,末次随访时Constant评分更高,术后肩关节前方不稳定复发率更高,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);但2组术后感染发生率、再手术率、恢复运动与工作患者的比例、末次随访时Rowe评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论关节镜手术治疗肩关节前方不稳定术后疗效肯定,术中神经损伤发生率低,患者术后恢复快、肩关节活动度更优。     

儿童腹股沟疝腹腔镜与开放手术效果与安全性的Meta分析

目的比较腹腔镜与开放疝囊高位结扎术治疗儿童腹股沟疝的安全性和效果。 方法制定严格的纳入标准与排除标准,检索中国生物医学文献检索分析系统光盘数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、PubMed、EMbase等数据库,收集1987至2018年腹腔镜疝囊高位结扎术（LH）和传统疝囊高位结扎术（OH）治疗儿童腹股沟疝的随机对照试验,按照Cochrane协作网推荐的方法对纳入研究进行系统分析。 结果11篇随机对照试验（1508例患者）纳入分析,LH组757例,OH组751例。LH组与OH组比较睾丸萎缩发生率[OR=0.15,95% CI（0.03~0.84）,P=0.03]、术后总并发症发生率[OR=0.15,95% CI（0.08~0.26）,P<0.000 01]、复发率[RR=0.33,95% CI（0.18~0.62）,P=0.000 5]均较低。与OH组比较,双侧疝亚组,LH组的手术时间较短[MD=－8.82,95% CI（－11.80~－5.83）,P<0.000 01],而对于单侧疝亚组,2组的手术时间无明显差异[MD=－2.71,95% CI（－7.96~2.54）,P=0.31]。恢复正常活动的时间[MD=－0.06,95% CI（－0.66~0.53）,P=0.84]和止痛药物的使用剂量[MD=－0.84,95% CI（－0.36~1.93）,P=0.55],组间均无明显差异。 结论Meta分析显示,LH较OH有明显的优势,特别是减少术后并发症及疝复发方面,但仍需要高质量的随机对照试验进一步支持。     

关节镜和开放治疗复发性肩关节前方不稳的Meta分析

目的系统评价关节镜下和开放手术治疗青壮年复发性肩关节前方不稳定的疗效。方法计算机检索Cochrane图书馆(2011年第6期)、MEDLINE(1966年至2011年6月)、EMBase(1966年至2011年6月)、中国生物医学文献数据库(1979年1月至2011年6月)、PubMed(1966年6月至2011年6月)、万方数据库和维普数据库,手工检索中文骨科期刊的相关文献。收集所有关节镜与开放手术比较治疗青壮年患者(18～55岁)复发性肩关节前方不稳的随机对照试验,筛选出符合纳入标准的文献,对其进行严格的质量评价后应用RevMan5.0软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入5个随机对照试验,包含278例患者。Meta分析结果显示,术后肩关节Rowe评分(WMD=4.43,95%CI2.27～6.59),关节镜手术治疗组优于开放手术治疗组。但二者在术后肩关节不稳复发(RR=1.31,95%CI0.51～3.34)、术后神经损伤(RR=0.51,95%CI0.11～2.32)、术后再手术(RR=0.49,95%CI0.11～2.27)、术后恢复伤前功能(RR=0.96,95%CI0.80～1.15)等方面比较均无统计学意义。结论与传统开放手术相比,关节镜手术治疗青壮年复发性肩关节前向不稳,术后肩关节Rowe评分具有优势,但术后并发症等方面二者间无明显差异。     

创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位全关节镜下与切开术式治疗的临床疗效对比

[目的]比较关节镜和开放两种手术方式治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位的临床疗效。[方法]自2012年5月~2014年2月,对84例确诊为肩关节前下盂唇损伤(Bankart损伤)导致的复发性肩关节前脱位的患者进行分组随机对照研究。其中关节镜手术组42例,开放手术组42例,关节镜手术组采用关节镜下带线锚钉Bankart修复术,开放手术组则行MontgomeryJobe切开术式置入带线锚钉进行治疗。术后按标准进行肩关节康复训练。并按Bigliani肩关节评分系统、Rowe肩关节评分系统和视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)进行评估,并比较两组间差异。[结果]术后1例患者失访,其余83例获得了13~33个月(平均25.5个月)随访。其中术后1年时Bigliani评分为关节镜手术组(6.5±0.7)分和开放手术组(4.4±1.9)分,组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);Rowe评分为关节镜手术组(75.7±1.7)分和开放手术组(54.4±2.1)分,组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。另外,关节镜手术在减轻肩关节疼痛(VAS评分,P0.05)和增加肩关节活动范围(ROM)(P0.05)方面明显优于开放手术组。[结论]关节镜Bankart修复术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位临床疗效明显优于开放Bankart修复术,关节镜手术在减轻术后疼痛和增加肩关节ROM方面效果更好。     

腹腔镜与开腹肝癌切除术手术疗效的Meta分析

目的：采用Meta分析方法分析腹腔镜与开腹手术对肝癌患者的长期疗效与安全性。方法：计算机检索PubMed、中国生物医学文献数据库及万方数据库,收集比较腹腔镜切除与开腹切除治疗肝癌的非随机临床对照试验研究。采用Cochrane协作网专用软件RevMan5．1对数据进行统计分析。结果：（1）手术时间：10个研究（n=709）的手术时间差异无统计学意义[均数差值（MD）=0．01min,95％CI（-0．19,0．16）,P=0．879];（2）术中出血量：9个研究（n=633）的术中出血量差异无统计学意义[MD=0．03ml,95％CI（-0．14,0．21）,P=0．715];（3）术中输血率：7个研究（n：552）的术中输血率差异有统计学意义[（RR）=2．72,95％CI（1．29,5．74）,P=0．009];（4）并发症：10个研究（n=709）的并发症发生率差异有统计学意义[RR=0．52,95％CI（0．31,0．88）,P=0．015];（5）1、3、5年无瘤生存率：5个研究（n=304）的1、3、5年无瘤生存率差异无统计学意义[RR=0．94,95％CI（0．87,1．02）,P=0．130;RR=1．02,95％CI（0．86,1．21）,P=0．841;RR：1．17,95％CI（0．84,1．64）,P=0．355];（6）1、3、5年生存率：7个研究（n=440）的1、3、5年生存率差异无统计学意义[RR=0．97,95％CI（0．92,1．03）,P=0．366;RR=0．98,95％CI（0．88,1．09）,P=0．697;RR=1．03,95％CI（0．85,1．25）,P=0．766]。结论：与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜手术治疗肝癌具有术中输血少、术后并发症发生率低等优点,手术时间,术中出血量,术后1、3、5年生存率及无瘤生存率无显薯薯鼻．     

经劈三角肌入路与经三角肌胸大肌入路治疗肱骨近端骨折临床疗效的Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析评测经劈三角肌入路与三角肌胸大肌肌间隙入路治疗肱骨近端移位骨折的临床疗效。 方法检索Pubmed、Embase、等知名数据库,辅以手工检索、文献追溯相关文献,收集2006年1月至2018年04月国内外已发表两种手术入路的对照研究文章。严格评价纳入研究的文献质量及提取相关数据资料,运用RevMan5.3软件统计分析相关数据行Meta分析。 结果纳入10项对照研究,共789例患者。结果分析显示：经劈三角肌入路和三角肌胸大肌入路在手术时间（95% CI：-26.56~9.77,P<0.00001）、术中出血量（95% CI：-73.79~-19.54,P<0.00001）、住院天数（95% CI：-1.35~-0.60,P<0.00001）、术后3个月Constant评分（95% CI：4.38~6.92,P<0.00001）、术后6个月日常生活能力量表（ADL）（95% CI：0.27~2.02,P=0.01）方面,差异均有统计学意义。术后6个月（95% CI：-1.66~6.74,P=0.24）、12月Constant评分（95% CI：-7.01~7.73,P=0.92）、术后12个月ADL（95% CI：-0.18~1.49,P=0.12）、上肢功能评分（DASH）（95% CI：-4.91~2.47,P=0.52）、并发症（95% CI：0.55~1.34,P=0.51）等方面差异无统计学意义。 结论经劈三角肌入路手术时间更短、术中出血量更少、住院时间减短、术后早期功能恢复更好。但在并发症发生率、晚期上肢功能等方面尚无足够证据证明其有明显差异。     

关节镜下辅助手术和开放手术治疗创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位的临床效果比较

目的创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者采用关节镜下辅助手术和开放手术治疗的临床效果及对肩关节功能的影响对比。方法选择2014年6月至2017年6月医院收治的88例创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者,采用随机数表法将患者分为两组,每组各44例,其中对照组给予常规开发手术治疗,观察组给予关节镜下辅助手术治疗,术后进行肩关节康复训练,并随访1年,采用视觉疼痛模拟评分(VAS)对患者手术前后疼痛进行评分,于术后1年采用Rowe肩关节评分及Bigliani肩关节不稳手术修复后稳定性评分对肩关节功能的恢复情况进行评估,并对比两组并发症的发生情况。结果两组手术前VAS评分相比差异无统计学意义(t=0.11,P0.05);手术后1年,观察组评分显著低于对照组,两组相比差异有统计学意义(t=3.70,P0.05);对照组患者术后1年Rowe肩关节评分及Bigliani肩关节稳定性评分均高于观察组,两组相比差异有统计学意义(t=18.24、4.07,P0.05);对照组术后并发症的发生率为18.18%,观察组术后并发症的发生率为4.55%,两组相比差异有统计学意义(χ~2=7.69,P0.05)。结论关节镜下辅助手术可有效降低创伤性复发性肩关节前脱位患者时候疼痛,肩关节功能恢复效果好,且术后并发症发生率少,值得在临床上推广。     

Clinical Outcomes of Open Versus Arthroscopic Broström Procedure for Lateral Ankle Instability: A Meta-analysis

Arthroscopic repair of the anterior talofibular ligament is becoming increasingly popular as a surgical option for lateral ankle instability. However, studies directly comparing outcomes of open and arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair continue to present conflicting conclusions. This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and open Broström procedure. A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from January 2010 to March 2020 to identify all clinical studies (level of evidence I-III) comparing outcomes of arthroscopic versus open Broström procedure for chronic lateral ankle instability. Six studies were included in this review. The arthroscopic technique, compared to the open technique, resulted in higher American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-2.34, p= .04), higher Karlsson scores (WMD = 1.86, 95% CI: 0.46-3.25, p= .009) and lower Visual Analog Scale pain scores (WMD = ?0.31, 95% CI: ?0.51 to ?0.10, p= .003). There were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative anterior drawer test (WMD = ?0.10, 95% CI: ?0.60 to 0.39, p= .68), talar tilt (WMD = 0.31, 95% CI: ?0.10 to 0.72, p= .14) or overall complication rates (odds ratio [OR] = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.37-1.64, p= .51). The odds of wound-related complications in arthroscopic Broström procedures was significantly lower than that of open Broström procedures (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07-0.95, p= .04). Current evidence shows that arthroscopic repairs offer comparable clinical outcomes with a lower wound complication rate, compared to traditional open repairs.     

Editorial Commentary: Is Arthroscopic Bone Grafting Nearly Equivalent to Open Bone Grafting for Glenoid Bone Defects in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability?

Arthroscopic techniques are an emerging technology to deal with glenoid bone defects in patients with anterior shoulder instability, and improvements are being made to safely minimize the risk of injury to the anterior neurovascular structures including the axillary nerve. Arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction is a technically demanding procedure, but it does have promising short-term outcomes. I truly like the concept of anterior (and also posterior) bone grafting for defects of the glenoid, including the arthroscopic Latarjet. A free bone graft (iliac crest, distal tibia) is part of a logical surgical learning curve progression to treat bone defects from an arthroscopic standpoint. Before performing an arthroscopic Latarjet, I might suggest looking at performing free bone block fixation arthroscopically. But, for now, I still enjoy the success of an open bone grafting procedure and will continue to use open as my primary bone grafting (Latarjet, distal tibia, iliac crest), so as to optimize the position of the graft for successful long-term outcomes. We look forward to seeing more of the authors' work and a longer term follow-up of these patients to clearly delineate the development of osteoarthrosis, recurrent instability, and long-term stability of the bone graft and shoulder joint function.     

Arthroscopic Latarjet: Indications,Techniques, and Results

The Latarjet procedure to treat instability was first described by the eponymous surgeon in 1954. Long-term results from this procedure have been favorable. In 2007, Lafosse et al. first described an all-arthroscopic technique for the Latarjet procedure.In the United States, the Latarjet procedure is most predictably indicated by surgeons in cases of significant glenoid bone loss, revision instability, and patients engaging in high-risk sport. In some European centers, the Latarjet has broader indications and is often also used as a first-line surgical intervention when conservative treatment has failed, including for those without bone loss or with multidirectional instability.• Achieve exposure of the inferior pole of coracoid and anterior glenoid rim; • coracoid is prepared; axillary nerve and brachial plexus are exposed; • coracoid portal is created; • coracoid is drilled and osteotomy is made; • coracoid transferred to anterior glenoid rim through split in subscapularis; • the bone graft is fixed in place with screws.Arthroscopic Latarjet can have a difficult learning curve compared with the open procedure. Both arthroscopic and open Latarjet have similar complication rates. The most common complications include graft fracture, non-union, and infection and are less than 2%. Arthroscopic Latarjet is reported to be less painful initially, but this equalizes by 1 month. Studies have shown that arthroscopic Latarjet results in excellent graft position. Recurrent instability for arthroscopic Latarjet ranges from 0.3% to 4.8% and is comparable with open Latarjet procedures.In summary, the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure results in less pain early, excellent coracoid graft position, and has a similar complication rate to open Latarjet.     

Editorial Commentary: Recurrence After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: What the Instability Severity Index Score Will and Will Not Predict

The recurrence of shoulder instability is a challenging complication after anterior open or arthroscopic stabilization in patients with glenohumeral instability. Use of the arthroscopic Bankart procedure has increased over the last decade, because of its less invasiveness and low complication rates compared with the Latarjet procedure. However, arthroscopic repair has the possibility of a greater recurrent instability rate. The Instability Shoulder Index Score (ISIS) has been developed to predict the success of isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair for the management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The risk factors associated with the recurrence of instability are age, level and type of sports participation, shoulder hyperlaxity, and humeral and glenoid bony lesions. The ISIS is a validated tool to predict the recurrence of dislocation after arthroscopic surgery in patients with shoulder instability. The arthroscopic Bankart procedure can be performed in patients with ISIS ≤3 with a low risk of recurrence of glenohumeral instability. The Latarjet procedure should be recommended in patients with ISIS >6. The management of patients with ISIS between 4 and 6 is still controversial and ranges from arthroscopic Bankart procedure with the addition of remplissage to the Latarjet procedure. Because advanced imaging techniques, such as computed tomography scans, allow us to assess appropriately the glenoid and humeral bone defect, their use is recommended in addition to ISIS.     

Subscapularis function following the latarjet coracoid transfer for recurrent anterior shoulder instability

The Latarjet procedure may be performed with both subscapularis splitting and subscapularis transecting approaches. The subscapularis splitting approach may better preserve subscapularis function and anatomy. The goal of this study was to determine the functional status of the subscapularis after the Latarjet procedure with a subscapularis splitting approach using the quantified belly press test. Thirty patients with traumatic anterior shoulder instability were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent a Latarjet procedure through a subscapularis splitting approach. Both operative and nonoperative extremities were tested preoperatively with a belly press test using an Isobex muscle strength analyzer (Medical Device Solutions AG, Oberburg, Switzerland). Fifteen patients returned for postoperative Isobex belly press testing at a minimum of 6 months. Average patient age was 23.3 years, and average follow-up interval was 13 months. We detected no significant differences in pre- vs postoperative subscapularis strength in the surgical shoulder (decreased by 0.3 kg [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.7 kg; P=.630]). There was no difference in control vs surgical arm at preoperative (control +0.3 kg stronger; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0.1 kg; P=.124) vs postoperative (control +0.3 kg stronger; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.5 kg; P=.444) measurements. Neither sex (P=.593) nor surgery in the dominant arm (P=.459) had an effect on recovery of subscapularis strength. Finally, the surgical arm at follow-up was not significantly different from reported height- and weight-based normative values for either men (P=.481) or women (P=.298). This study suggests that subscapularis strength is not significantly altered by the Latarjet procedure with a subscapularis splitting approach.     

Editorial Commentary: Computed Tomography-based Analysis of the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure Suggests Graft Positioning Is More Variable than Expected

The Latarjet operation is one of the most successful techniques for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability, which has recently been translated into the arthroscopic field. Several studies suggest that its arthroscopic variant is safe and reproducible and report promising short-term and mid-term results. Some authors claim that, in addition to less soft tissue damage, positioning of the coracoid graft is more accurate during arthroscopic control. There is currently no evidence of superiority of the arthroscopic or the open technique. As with the open procedure, the arthroscopic Latarjet operation requires a substantial learning curve; therefore the arthroscopic technique should be reserved for experienced arthroscopists treating a large number of shoulder instabilities.     

Editorial Commentary: Glenoid Track Instability Management Score or Instability Severity Index Score—Will This Decrease Latarjet Abuse?

Open treatment of anterior shoulder instability using a coracoid transfer, such as the Latarjet procedure, is associated with low recurrence rates but with significant complications such as nerve injury, arthrosis, and graft osteolysis. However, an arthroscopic Bankart procedure, although less invasive and with a low complication rate, has the possibility of a higher recurrent instability rate. Scoring systems such as the Instability Severity Index Score, created to select patients for an arthroscopic Bankart procedure or coracoid transfer, have varying levels of success. Often, the scoring system selects a relatively high percentage of patients for the coracoid transfer, possibly undermining its widespread adoption. The relation between glenoid and humeral bone loss has produced the concept of “on-track” and “off-track,” which impacts recurrent instability rates. Merging the on-track and off-track concept with the new Glenoid Track Instability Management Score may produce an algorithm that more accurately assesses the need for the Latarjet procedure or arthroscopic stabilization.     

Editorial Commentary: The Latarjet: Increased Shoulder Stability,and Increased Risk of Complications in Low Volume Practitioners

The Latarjet procedure is a well-established treatment for shoulder instability. It is traditionally used for recurrent instability with significant bone loss (i.e. >20%) or after failed soft tissue procedures. It can be done open or arthroscopically with either a subscapularis takedown or a split. It has good long-term results regarding recurrence and clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, it has higher complication rates in comparison to its alternative procedures such as arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Bankart repair. These complications may be due to the learning curve of performing the procedure and lack of proper training. The Latarjet procedure is a necessary tool to treat shoulder instability. We need better training and exposure to Latarjet procedures in residency, fellowship, and clinical practice so that more providers can do this procedure for our patients, but we need to do it more safely.