Zhongguo Gu Shang 2021 Jun;34(6):573-83
The Forth Department of Joint, Wangjing Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Science, Beijing 100102, China.
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy between open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedure in the treatment of anterior shoulder instability by using Meta-analysis.
Methods: Search PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI), Wanfang database, China Biological Literature system(CBM) and VIP database. Review all retrospective or prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials on open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability. Binary variables (postoperative recurrence rate, incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications) and continuousvariables [shoulder external rotation range of motion, Walch-Duplay score, Rowe score, WOSI score, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), postoperative anxiety degree and operation time] were selected for analysis. NOS bias risk assessment criteria (recommended by Cochrane collaboration Network) were used to evaluate the literature quality of retrospective or prospective cohort studies, and modified Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials. Literature screening, literature quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out independently by two observers. RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meta analysis.
Results: (1)A total of 9 studies were included, including 8 retrospective cohort studies and 1 prospective cohort study. A total of 956 patients were included in this study, including open Latarjet procedure(=436) and arthroscopic Latarjet procedure(=520). (2)The postoperative WOSI score in the open group was better than that of arthroscopic group (=93.74, 95%:26.00 to 161.49, =0.007), and the α angle was smaller than arthroscopic group(=-6.44, 95%:-12.08 to 0.81, =0.02). (3)The recurrence rate of open Latarjet group was lower than that of arthroscopic Latarjet group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (=0.84, 95%:0.23 to 3.05, =0.79). (4)There were no significant difference in shoulder external rotation, Walch-Duplay score, Rowe score, postoperative visual analogue score, postoperative anxiety degree and operation time between open and arthroscopic Latarjet group.
Conclusion: The arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation shows satisfactory and comparable results to open procedure, and the postoperative recurrence and complication rates are low in both group. Both open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedure are reliable surgical procedures in the treatment of anteriorly shoulder instability. Arthroscopic procedure has longer learning curve than open procedure, the doctors may either choose arthroscopic or open Latarjet procedure based on personal skills and preference, as well as the patient's condition. However, all the literatures included in this study are cohort studies with low level of evidence. The research lack randomized controlled trials, and small sample size is small. In the future, randomized controlled studies with large sample size and high level of evidence are still needed to determine the efficacy difference between the two.