Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30045745›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018

Open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for the treatment of shoulder instability: a systematic review of comparative studies.

Nolan S Horner, Paul A Moroz, Raman Bhullar, Anthony Habib, Nicole Simunovic, Ivan Wong, Asheesh Bedi, Olufemi R Ayeni

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review of surgery revision options.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Current Trends and Outcomes for Open vs. Arthroscopic Latarjet.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  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

8 authors.

Nolan S HornerDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W, Room 4E15, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Paul A MorozFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Raman BhullarFaculty of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain.
Anthony HabibDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W, Room 4E15, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Nicole SimunovicDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ivan WongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Asheesh BediMedSport, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Olufemi R AyeniDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W, Room 4E15, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada. ayenif@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures are both known to successfully treat shoulder instability with high success rates. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and positioning of the coracoid graft and screws between the arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures.

methodsThe electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies between database creation and 2018. Only studies directly comparing open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures were included.

resultsThere were 8 included studies, with a total of 580 patients treated arthroscopically and 362 patients treated with an open Latarjet procedure. Several papers found significantly better standardized outcome scores for either the open or arthroscopic procedure but these findings were not consistent across papers. Patients treated with arthroscopic Latarjet procedures had significantly lower initial post-operative pain, however pain scores became equivalent by one month post-operatively. Three of the five included studies found no significant difference in the coracoid graft positioning and two of three included studies found no significant difference in screw divergence angles between the two techniques. Arthroscopic procedures (112.2 min) appear to take, on average, longer than open procedures (93.3 min). However, operative times and complication rates decrease with surgeon experience with the arthroscopic procedure. Overall 3.8% of the patients treated arthroscopically and 6.4% of the patients treated with the open procedure went on to have post-operative complications.

conclusionsBoth open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures can be used to effectively treat shoulder instability with similarly low rates of complications, recurrent instability and need for revision surgery. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures are associated with less early post-operative pain but require increased operative time. The evidence does not support there being any significant difference in graft or screw positioning between the two techniques. At this time neither procedure shows clear superiority over the other.

Indexed as

ArthroscopyHumansJoint InstabilityProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesShoulder DislocationTreatment OutcomeArthroscopyBone blockDislocationInstabilityLatarjetShoulder instability

Identifiers

PMID30045745
PMCPMC6060556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.