Current Trends and Outcomes for Open vs. Arthroscopic Latarjet

Purpose of ReviewThis paper aims to analyze and compare the existing research on open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for treating anterior shoulder instability. The review will assess different factors such as graft positioning, functional outcomes, complications, and return-to-play rates for both approaches. The study's primary goal is to establish which technique yields superior outcomes.Recent FindingsRecent studies have suggested that arthroscopic Latarjet surgery can produce outcomes similar to open surgery regarding functional scores and patient satisfaction. Some research indicates that arthroscopy may even provide slightly better results. Both techniques have similar complication rates, but arthroscopy requires a longer learning curve and operating time. It is crucial to ensure the proper placement of the graft, and some studies suggest that arthroscopy may be better at achieving accurate positioning.SummaryBoth open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures are equally effective in treating shoulder instability. While arthroscopy offers a faster recovery time and causes less soft tissue damage, it requires surgeons to undergo a steeper learning curve. The optimal graft position for both techniques is still debated. More long-term data is needed to establish superiority. Future research should compare approaches in larger cohorts and identify outcome-affecting factors to improve the treatment of shoulder instability. Both techniques are promising, but arthroscopy may be a better option as the procedure evolves into a less invasive reconstruction.