Management of The Failed Latarjet Procedure: Outcomes of Revision Surgery With Fresh Distal Tibial Allograft
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: A patient with recurrent instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remains a challenge to address. The vast majority of these result in large amounts of bone loss, resorption, and issues with retained hardware, and there is minimal literature that assesses outcomes of revision surgery following a failed Latarjet. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure. Methods: All consecutive patients who presented with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a Latarjet procedure were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had a prior Latarjet, and a history and physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, time of instability, number of prior procedures, and examination findings, as well as plain radiographic data and computed tomography (CT) scan obtained on all patients, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) grade. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsulo-labral release with subsequent repair and bony reconstruction via fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes pre- and post-revision were assessed with ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Score), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI), and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum time point 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with mean age 25.5 (range, 19 to 38), and with a mean follow-up of 47 months (range, 36 to 60) after the revision with distal tibial allograft. All patients after their Latarjet presented with recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31) or recurrent subluxation (20/31) and all patients had recurrent shoulder instability on examination. Radiographs demonstrated two fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade of 0.5 (range, I to III), and CT scan demonstrated that mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 50% to 100%). Preoperative outcomes improved for ASES (40 to 92, p=0.001), SANE (44 to 91, p=0.001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, p=0.001). There were no recurrences, and a final CT scan of the distal tibia revision demonstrated a mean 92% of DTA remained, but 98% union at the glenoid-DTA interface. Conclusion: Although the failed Latarjet with subsequent instability remains a challenge, treatment with fresh a distal tibial allograft provided substantial improvement in terms of stability and function. The vast majority of the failed Latarjet procedures had near complete resorption of the coracoid graft and many had hardware complications. Additional long-term studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this challenging revision population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».