Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.9 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Hashim Manea, Muhammad Hassan Hafeez, Bilal Ahmad, Mohammed Ganim Musa, Fatimah Abdullah Sulaiman, Haider Anwar Ghalib, Ralph Maroun, Jamil Nasrallah, Ahmed Adnan Al-Khafagi
{"title":"Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Versus Open Latarjet Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hashim Manea, Muhammad Hassan Hafeez, Bilal Ahmad, Mohammed Ganim Musa, Fatimah Abdullah Sulaiman, Haider Anwar Ghalib, Ralph Maroun, Jamil Nasrallah, Ahmed Adnan Al-Khafagi","doi":"10.1177/11795441251360805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior shoulder instability is prevalent among young, active individuals, especially athletes. The optimal surgical intervention remains debated between Arthroscopic Bankart repair and Open Latarjet procedure.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Open Latarjet procedure results in lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes compared with the Arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability, particularly those with significant glenoid bone loss and multiple preoperative dislocations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases searched included PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies comparing Arthroscopic Bankart repair with Open Latarjet procedure, reporting on recurrence rates, functional outcomes, and complications. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by 3 reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 studies with 1636 patients were included. The Open Latarjet group exhibited significantly lower recurrence rates (4.2%) compared with the Arthroscopic Bankart group (11.8%). Functional scores (Rowe, WOSI, and ASES) were higher in the Latarjet group. Complication rates were similar, but the Bankart group had higher rates of redislocation and revision surgeries. Subgroup analyses revealed that patients with significant glenoid bone loss and multiple preoperative dislocations benefited more from the Latarjet procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Open Latarjet procedure offers superior outcomes for patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability, especially those with significant bone loss and multiple dislocations. Surgical decision-making should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":10443,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"18 ","pages":"11795441251360805"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12340203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11795441251360805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anterior shoulder instability is prevalent among young, active individuals, especially athletes. The optimal surgical intervention remains debated between Arthroscopic Bankart repair and Open Latarjet procedure.

Objectives: The Open Latarjet procedure results in lower recurrence rates and better functional outcomes compared with the Arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability, particularly those with significant glenoid bone loss and multiple preoperative dislocations.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Methods: Databases searched included PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies comparing Arthroscopic Bankart repair with Open Latarjet procedure, reporting on recurrence rates, functional outcomes, and complications. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by 3 reviewers.

Results: 15 studies with 1636 patients were included. The Open Latarjet group exhibited significantly lower recurrence rates (4.2%) compared with the Arthroscopic Bankart group (11.8%). Functional scores (Rowe, WOSI, and ASES) were higher in the Latarjet group. Complication rates were similar, but the Bankart group had higher rates of redislocation and revision surgeries. Subgroup analyses revealed that patients with significant glenoid bone loss and multiple preoperative dislocations benefited more from the Latarjet procedure.

Conclusion: The Open Latarjet procedure offers superior outcomes for patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability, especially those with significant bone loss and multiple dislocations. Surgical decision-making should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors.

关节镜下Bankart修复与开放Latarjet修复肩关节前部不稳定:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:前肩不稳在年轻、活跃的个体中很普遍,尤其是运动员。关节镜下Bankart修复和Open Latarjet手术之间的最佳手术干预仍然存在争议。目的:与关节镜下Bankart修复相比,Open Latarjet治疗复发性肩关节前不稳定患者的复发率更低,功能效果更好,特别是那些有明显的肩关节骨丢失和术前多次脱位的患者。设计:按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。方法:检索PubMed、谷歌Scholar、Cochrane Library等数据库。纳入标准包括比较关节镜Bankart修复与Open Latarjet手术,报告复发率,功能结果和并发症的研究。数据提取和偏倚风险评估由3位审稿人独立完成。结果:纳入15项研究,1636例患者。Open Latarjet组复发率(4.2%)明显低于关节镜Bankart组(11.8%)。功能评分(Rowe、WOSI和ASES)在Latarjet组较高。并发症发生率相似,但Bankart组有更高的脱位和翻修手术率。亚组分析显示,术前有严重盂骨丢失和多发脱位的患者从Latarjet手术中获益更多。结论:Open Latarjet手术对于复发性肩前路不稳患者,尤其是那些骨质流失和多发脱位的患者,提供了优越的治疗效果。手术决策应个体化,考虑患者的具体因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信