Cargando…

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair

PURPOSE: To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gambhir, Neil, Alben, Matthew G., Kim, Matthew T., Gyftopoulos, Soterios, Rokito, Andrew S., Virk, Mandeep S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9596893/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36312717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.06.010
_version_ 1784815969557807104
author Gambhir, Neil
Alben, Matthew G.
Kim, Matthew T.
Gyftopoulos, Soterios
Rokito, Andrew S.
Virk, Mandeep S.
author_facet Gambhir, Neil
Alben, Matthew G.
Kim, Matthew T.
Gyftopoulos, Soterios
Rokito, Andrew S.
Virk, Mandeep S.
author_sort Gambhir, Neil
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR). METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon’s practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05. RESULTS: The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9596893
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95968932022-10-27 No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair Gambhir, Neil Alben, Matthew G. Kim, Matthew T. Gyftopoulos, Soterios Rokito, Andrew S. Virk, Mandeep S. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR). METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon’s practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05. RESULTS: The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study. Elsevier 2022-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9596893/ /pubmed/36312717 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.06.010 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Gambhir, Neil
Alben, Matthew G.
Kim, Matthew T.
Gyftopoulos, Soterios
Rokito, Andrew S.
Virk, Mandeep S.
No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title_full No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title_fullStr No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title_full_unstemmed No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title_short No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair
title_sort no differences in 90-day complications and admissions after latarjet procedure for primary bone loss versus latarjet procedure for failed arthroscopic instability repair
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9596893/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36312717
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.06.010
work_keys_str_mv AT gambhirneil nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair
AT albenmatthewg nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair
AT kimmatthewt nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair
AT gyftopoulossoterios nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair
AT rokitoandrews nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair
AT virkmandeeps nodifferencesin90daycomplicationsandadmissionsafterlatarjetprocedureforprimarybonelossversuslatarjetprocedureforfailedarthroscopicinstabilityrepair