Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jul;34(7):2032-2040. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.01.054. Epub 2018 May 19.

Arthroscopic Latarjet Techniques: Graft and Fixation Positioning Assessed With 2-Dimensional Computed Tomography Is Not Equivalent With Standard Open Technique.

Author information

1
Ramsay Générale de Santé, Hôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France; Centre Orthopédique Santy, Lyon, France. Electronic address: neyton.lionel@orange.fr.
2
Clinique des Cèdres, Echirolles, France.
3
Clinique Maussins-Nollet, Paris, France.
4
Hôpital Privé La Châtaigneraie - ELSAN, Beaumont, France.
5
CHU Nice-Hôpital Pasteur 2, Nice, France.
6
Ramsay Générale de Santé, Hôpital Privé Jean Mermoz, Lyon, France; Centre Orthopédique Santy, Lyon, France.
7
Clinique Générale Annecy, Annecy, France.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To analyze graft and fixation (screw and EndoButton) positioning after the arthroscopic Latarjet technique with 2-dimensional computed tomography (CT) and to compare it with the open technique.

METHODS:

We performed a retrospective multicenter study (March 2013 to June 2014). The inclusion criteria included patients with recurrent anterior instability treated with the Latarjet procedure. The exclusion criterion was the absence of a postoperative CT scan. The positions of the hardware, the positions of the grafts in the axial and sagittal planes, and the dispersion of values (variability) were compared.

RESULTS:

The study included 208 patients (79 treated with open technique, 87 treated with arthroscopic Latarjet technique with screw fixation [arthro-screw], and 42 treated with arthroscopic Latarjet technique with EndoButton fixation [arthro-EndoButton]). The angulation of the screws was different in the open group versus the arthro-screw group (superior, 10.3° ± 0.7° vs 16.9° ± 1.0° [P < .001]; inferior, 10.3° ± 0.8° vs 15.7° ± 0.9° [P < .0001]). The angulation of the EndoButtons was 5.7° ± 0.5°; this was different from that of open inferior screws (P = .003). In the axial plane (level of equator), the arthroscopic techniques resulted in lateral positions (arthro-screw, 1.5 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .001]; arthro-EndoButton, 0 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .0001]) versus the open technique (0.9 ± 0.2 mm medial). At the level of 25% of the glenoid height, the arthroscopic techniques resulted in lateral positions (arthro-screw, 0.3 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .001]); (arthro-EndoButton, 0.7 ± 0.3 mm lateral [P < .0001]) versus the open technique (1.0 ± 0.2 mm medial). Higher variability was observed in the arthro-screw group. In the sagittal plane, the arthro-screw technique resulted in higher positions (55% ± 3% of graft below equator) and the arthro-EndoButton technique resulted in lower positions (82% ± 3%, P < .0001) versus the open technique (71% ± 2%). Variability was not different.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study shows that the position of the fixation devices and position of the bone graft with the arthroscopic techniques are statistically significantly different from those with the open technique with 2-dimensional CT assessment. In the sagittal plane, the arthro-screw technique provides the highest positions, and the arthro-EndoButton technique, the lowest. Overall, the mean position of the bone block with the open Latarjet technique in the axial plane is slightly medial to the joint line, as recommended. Conversely, with the arthroscopic techniques, the bone grafts are more lateral with a slight overhang. The main differences are observed in the dispersion of the values (more extreme positions) with the arthro-screw technique, given the acknowledged limitations. Despite the statistical significance, the clinical significance of these differences is yet unknown.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center