Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26745964›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2016

Open Latarjet versus arthroscopic Latarjet: clinical results and cost analysis.

P Randelli, C Fossati, C Stoppani, F R Evola, L De Girolamo

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison of Bankart repair with remplissage and Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Current Trends and Outcomes for Open vs. Arthroscopic Latarjet.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

P Randelli2nd Orthopaedic Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. pietro.randelli@unimi.it.
C Fossati2nd Orthopaedic Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
C Stoppani2nd Orthopaedic Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
F R EvolaOrthopaedic Clinic of University of Catania, Via Plebiscito no 628, Catania, Italy.
L De GirolamoOrthopaedic Biotechnology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITIRCCS Policlinico San Donato · ITIstituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITUniversity of Catania · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical results between open and arthroscopic Latarjet and perform a cost analysis of the two techniques. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review of articles present in PubMed and MEDLINE was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies concerning post-operative outcomes following Latarjet procedures for chronic anterior shoulder instability were selected for analysis. The clinical and radiographic results as well as the costs of the open and arthroscopic techniques were evaluated.

resultsTwenty-three articles, describing a total of 1317 shoulders, met the inclusion criteria: 17 studies were related to open Latarjet, and 6 to the arthroscopic technique. Despite the heterogeneity of the evaluation scales, the clinical results seemed very satisfactory for both techniques. We detected a statistically significant difference in the percentage of bone graft healing in favour of the open technique (88.6 vs 77.6 %). Recurrent dislocation was more frequent following open surgery (3.3 % after open surgery vs 0.3 % after arthroscopy), but this finding was biased by the large difference in follow-up duration between the two techniques. The direct costs of the arthroscopic procedure were double in comparison to open surgery (€2335 vs €1040). A lack of data prevented evaluation of indirect costs and, therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis.

conclusionsThe open and arthroscopic Latarjet techniques showed excellent and comparable clinical results. However, the much higher direct costs of the arthroscopic procedure do not seem, at present, to be justified by a benefit to the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyBone TransplantationCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansJoint InstabilityRecurrenceScapulaShoulder DislocationShoulder JointArthroscopic Latarjet procedureCoracoid bone blockCost-effectiveness analysisOpen Latarjet procedureShoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID26745964
OpenAlexW2229179692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.