Open latarjet procedure versus all-arthroscopic autologous tricortical iliac crest bone grafting for anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare the open Latarjet procedure versus the all-arthroscopic autologous tricortical iliac crest bone grafting (AICBG) technique for recurrent anterior-inferior glenohumeral instability with glenoid bone loss. Methods All open Latarjet and AICBG procedures for recurrent anterior-inferior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss performed at two institutions between September 2015 and April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were a traumatic etiology, a glenoid surface deficiency >13.5%, and a minimum follow-up (FU) of 18 months. Primary outcomes included the subjective shoulder value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI), Rowe scores including subdomains, and the four subdomains of the Constant score (pain, activities of daily living, internal rotation, external rotation). Secondary outcomes were subjective shoulder instability, EQ-5D-3 L, pain level on the VAS, level of overall satisfaction, operative time, return-to-work rate, and return-to-sports rate. Results Forty-three patients were available for final analysis (Latarjet: n = 21; AICBG: n = 22) at an average FU of 34.9 months (range, 22-66 months). Both techniques provided good outcomes and improved stability. The Rowe score, Rowe-range of motion, and CS-internal rotation (p = 0.008, p<0.001, p = 0.001) were slightly better in the AICBG group. Furthermore, the WOSI physical symptoms subdomain was significantly better (p = 0.04) in the AICBG group, while its total score did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcomes besides operative time, which was significantly shorter in the Latarjet procedure group (p = 0.04). Overall complication rate was similar in both groups (Latarjet: 9.5% (n = 2), AICBG: 9.1% (n = 2)). Conclusion Open Latarjet and AICBG procedures provide comparable clinical outcomes except for significantly better Rowe score, Rowe-range of motion, WOSI physical symptoms subdomain, and internal rotation capacity in the AICBG group. However, these results should be carefully interpreted in the context of known minimal clinically important differences of these scores.