Clinicians › Shoulder

Latarjet

Surgeon-side topic for latarjet. Backed by 392 articles from the corpus, retrieved via combined MeSH + title-text matching.

129 citationsUpdated Sep 2026

For patients: a plain-language version of this topic is available. See the patient guide.

Overview

The open Latarjet procedure is a reliable surgical intervention for shoulder instability, yielding excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up for most patients [1]. Long-term data confirm satisfactory clinical results, low rates of recurrent instability, and low rates of surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up [2]. With appropriate patient selection, the procedure prevents recurrent anterior instability in approximately 99% of cases [56]. It serves as a viable and possibly superior alternative to Bankart repair, offering greater stability without a significant increase in complication rates [58]. Recent reports further support its success through high patient satisfaction scores and low recurrence rates [14].

Complication profiles vary by context. The overall complication rate in open Latarjet series is 18.6%, with a 4.9% rate of class 3 adverse events requiring additional surgery or long-term medical treatment [5]. While the odds of reoperation and post-operative complications are greater following Latarjet compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18, 151], the procedure remains a robust option. In adolescent cohorts, complication rates are low, and outcomes are comparably good despite higher risk factors for recurrence [4]. Female gender is not a contraindication, though selection may require greater stringency [20].

Primary Latarjet generally presents reduced infection rates compared to revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes, complication measurements, and range of motion [10]. Primary Latarjet has lower recurrence rates (9.1%) compared to salvage procedures (20.7%) [33]. However, primary and salvage Latarjet may yield comparable efficacy regarding complications, reoperations, return to sport, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion [50]. Arthroscopic Latarjet as a revision surgery provides comparable clinical outcomes to primary Latarjet with low recurrence and complication rates [34]. Both open and arthroscopic approaches result in significant functional improvements and similar complication rates [8].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Bony Anatomy

The glenoid is a convex structure of shallow depth shaped like an inverted pear [69]. The glenoid cavity is a shallow socket, approximately one third the size of the humeral head [70]. The subchondral bone of the glenoid is relatively flat, with articular concavity augmented by cartilage and a circumferential labrum [72]. The glenoid averages 5° of retroversion in relation to the axis of the scapular body [72]. The glenoid diameter ranges from 18-30 mm superior anteroposterior, 21-35 mm inferior anteroposterior, and 30-48 mm superoinferior [81]. The glenoid inclination averages 4.2 degrees (–7 to 20 degrees) [81]. The glenoid version is 1.5 degrees retroversion (10.5-9.5 degrees anteversion) [81]. The glenoid surface area is 4-6 mm [81]. The glenoid cartilage thickness is 2.16 mm [81]. The glenoid radius of curvature is 22-28 mm [81]. The glenoid articular surface radius of curvature is 2 to 3 mm larger than that of the humeral head [81].

The humeral head is spherical with a diameter of 37 to 57 mm [69]. The most superior portion of the articular surface of the humeral head averages 8 mm above the greater tuberosity [69]. The superior margin of the humeral head articular surface is normally superior to the top of the greater tuberosity by 8 to 10 mm [81]. Humeral version averages 29.8 degrees, with a range of 10 to 55 degrees [69]. The humeral head is retroverted an average of 30 degrees [70]. The humeral head averages 19° of retroversion and 41° of inclination (neck-shaft angle) [72]. The humeral head is inclined approximately 130 degrees with respect to the humeral shaft [69]. The neck-shaft angle measures an average of 135 degrees [70]. The average neck-shaft angle is 45 degrees (±5 degrees), with a range of 30 to 50 degrees [81]. The head-shaft angle is 30-55 degrees [81]. The articular surface of the humeral head is essentially spherical, with an arc of approximately 160 degrees covered by articular cartilage [81]. The radius of curvature of the humeral head is approximately 25 mm and is slightly larger in men than in women [81]. The humeral head radius of curvature is 23-28 mm [81]. The humeral head surface area is 11-19 mm [81]. The humeral head cartilage thickness is 1.44 mm [81]. The medial (coronal) humeral offset is 4-14 mm [81]. The posterior (transverse) humeral offset is –2 to 10 mm [81]. The distance from the lateral base of the coracoid process to the lateral margin of the greater tuberosity is called the lateral humeral offset [81].

The glenoid is connected with the flat body of the scapula by the scapular neck [71]. The coracoid process curves forwards from the superior surface of the scapular neck [71]. The acromion, the coracoacromial ligament, and the coracoid process form the coracoacromial arch, a rigid bony-ligamentous structure that imparts stability to the shoulder girdle [69]. The lateral pillar connects the inferior border of the glenoid with the inferior angle of the scapula [71]. The spinal pillar arises from the central part of the glenoid and continues medially to become part of the base of the scapular spine [71]. The two bony pillars transmit compressive forces from the glenoid fossa [71]. The weakest bone in the scapula is located primarily in the central part of the biomechanical body, i.e., in the infraspinous fossa [71]. The weakest area of the circumference of the biomechanical body of the scapula is the connection of the scapular spine and the medial border of the scapula, known as the spinomedial angle [71]. The proximal humerus has three ossification centers: the humeral head (4 to 6 months), the greater tuberosity (1 to 3 years), and the lesser tuberosity (3 to 5 years) [72]. The proximal humeral ossification centers fuse to the shaft at age 17 to 20 years [72].

Soft Tissue Anatomy

The rotator cuff consists of the subscapularis, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor muscles [70]. The rotator cuff is a sheet of conjoined tendons closely applied over the shoulder capsule and inserting mainly into the greater tuberosity, with the subscapularis inserted into the lesser tuberosity [77]. The greater tuberosity serves as the attachment site for the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor tendons [69]. The lesser tuberosity serves as the attachment site for the subscapularis tendon [69]. The subscapularis inserts on the lesser tuberosity and causes medial displacement of fracture fragments [69]. The supraspinatus and infraspinatus insert on the greater tuberosity and cause superior and posterior displacement of fracture fragments [69]. The pectoralis major inserts on the humeral shaft and displaces it medially [69]. The bicipital groove lies between the greater and lesser tuberosities and serves as a pathway for the long head of the biceps [69]. The distal aspect of the bicipital groove is internally rotated with respect to the proximal portion [69]. The anatomic neck of the proximal humerus is located at the junction of the articular surface and the tuberosities [69]. The surgical neck represents an indistinct region (metadiaphyseal junction) below the tuberosities but above the humeral shaft [69].

The coracoacromial arch is formed by the acromion process posterosuperiorly, the coracoid process anteriorly, and the coracoacromial ligament joining them [77]. The subacromial bursa separates the rotator cuff tendons from the coracoacromial arch, allowing them to glide [77]. The subscapular bursa lies between the subscapularis tendon and the neck of the scapula and communicates with the joint cavity between the superior and middle glenohumeral ligaments [73]. The subscapular bursa protects the tendon of the subscapularis at the point where it passes under the base of the coracoid process and over the neck of the scapula [73]. The subscapular bursa is linked to the coracoid process by a suspensory ligament [73]. In 28% of dissected specimens, the subscapular bursae merged with the subcoracoid bursae, forming a unique wide bursa [73].

The rotator interval is defined medially by the base of the coracoid, superiorly by the supraspinatus tendon, and inferiorly by the subscapularis tendon [72]. The rotator interval contains the coracohumeral ligament, the superior glenohumeral ligament, and the intra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon [72]. The coracohumeral ligament is a thick band of fibrous tissue extending from the coracoid process along the surface of the capsule to the tuberosities between the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons [82]. The coracohumeral ligament is deep to the tendinous insertion of the cuff and blends with the capsule and supraspinatus tendon to form part of the roof of the biceps sheath [82]. A 1-cm wide thickening of fibrous tissue extends posteriorly from the coracohumeral ligament origin on the coracoid to the posterior margin of the glenoid [82]. The coracohumeral ligament restricts external rotation in adduction and is a static restraint to inferior and posterior translation in adduction and external rotation [72].

The superior glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against anterior translation with the arm at the side [72]. The superior glenohumeral ligament is the primary restraint to inferior humeral subluxation in 0 degrees of abduction and is the primary stabilizer to anterior and posterior stress in the same position [82]. The middle glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against anterior translation with the arm in external rotation and 45° of abduction [72]. The middle glenohumeral ligament limits external rotation when the arm is in the lower and middle ranges of abduction but has little effect when the arm is in 90 degrees of abduction [82]. The inferior glenohumeral ligament is composed of an anterior band that is quite thick, a posterior band that is less thick and distinct, and a thinner intervening axillary pouch, creating a hammock-type sling [82]. The anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against anterior-inferior dislocation of the glenohumeral joint in 90° of abduction and external rotation [72]. The posterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against posterior-inferior translation in internal rotation and adduction [72]. With external rotation, the inferior glenohumeral ligament hammock slides anteriorly and superiorly, the anterior band tightens, and the posterior band fans out [82]. The anteroinferior glenohumeral ligament complex is the main stabilizer to anterior and posterior stresses when the shoulder is abducted 45 degrees or more [82].

The tendons of the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles join approximately 15 mm proximal to their insertion and cannot be readily separated by blunt dissection [82]. The infraspinatus and teres minor fuse near their musculotendinous junctions [82]. The supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons join as a sheath that surrounds the biceps tendon at the entrance of the bicipital groove [82]. The roof of the biceps sheath consists of a portion of the supraspinatus tendon, and a sheet of the subscapularis tendon forms the floor [82].

Vascular & Neural Anatomy

The superior transverse scapular ligament arises from the medial base of the coracoid overlying the suprascapular notch [72]. The suprascapular artery runs superior to the superior transverse scapular ligament, and the nerve runs deep to the ligament [72]. Entrapment of the suprascapular nerve at the superior transverse scapular ligament causes denervation of both the supraspinatus and the infraspinatus [72]. The spinoglenoid ligament overlies the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch [72]. Entrapment, traction, or compression of the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch causes denervation of the infraspinatus [72].

The axillary nerve is a terminal branch coming off the posterior cord of the brachial plexus just proximal to the coracoid process [75]. The axillary nerve passes beneath the conjoined tendon anterior to the subscapularis 3 to 5 mm medial to the musculotendinous junction [75]. The axillary nerve is adjacent to the inferior capsule before entering the quadrilateral space posteriorly [75]. The axillary nerve splits into the anterior and posterior branches within the quadrangular space [75]. The anterior and middle deltoid muscle receives sole innervation from the anterior branch of the axillary nerve [75]. The posterior deltoid muscle innervation varies, with supply only from the anterior branch in 2.3% of cases, from the posterior branch in 8.5%, and from both branches in 89.1% [75]. The posterior branch of the axillary nerve branches to supply the teres minor muscle and then terminates as the superior lateral brachial cutaneous nerve [75]. In the anterior deltopectoral approach, the axillary nerve can be palpated by sweeping a finger inferiorly across the subscapularis muscle tendon interface [75]. In the anterolateral deltoid splitting approach, the axillary nerve crosses approximately 5 cm inferior to the anterolateral acromial corner [75]. In the posterior deltoid splitting approach, the axillary nerve is approximately 7 cm from the posterior acromial corner [75]. The axillary nerve circles the humeral neck just inferior to the glenohumeral joint as it courses posteriorly [76].

The proximal humerus receives its blood supply from the anterior and posterior humeral circumflex branches from the third division of the axillary artery [69]. The anterior and posterior humeral circumflex arteries provide a rich blood supply to the proximal humerus [76]. The posterior humeral circumflex artery travels with the axillary nerve, enters the quadrilateral space posteriorly, and anastomoses with a branch of the anterior circumflex to supply the posterior cuff [69]. Recent quantitative assessment has shown that 64% of the humeral head blood supply arises from the posterior humeral circumflex artery [76]. The anterior humeral circumflex artery arises from the axillary artery at the inferior border of the subscapularis [69]. The anterior humeral circumflex artery provides vascular inflow to the humeral head by way of its terminal anterolateral branch known as the artery of Laing (also known as the arcuate artery) [69]. The ascending branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery courses parallel to the lateral aspect of the long head biceps tendon and enters the humeral head at the interface of the bicipital groove and greater tuberosity [69]. The anterolateral ascending branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery provides the primary blood supply to the humeral head [72]. The anterolateral ascending branch travels proximally in the lateral aspect of the intertubercular groove [72]. The terminal intraosseous portion of the artery enters at the proximal aspect of the intertubercular groove as the arcuate artery [72]. The major blood supply to the humeral head is through the ascending branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery, which penetrates the head at the bicipital groove and becomes the arcuate artery [70]. Injury to the arcuate artery may result in osteonecrosis of the humeral head [69]. Additional extraosseous collateral branches can permit humeral head perfusion despite complete ligation of the arcuate artery [69]. The brachial plexus and axillary artery are anterior to the coracoid process of the scapula and humeral head [70].

Joint Stability & Pathophysiology

Stability and function of the glenohumeral joint is provided by the interaction of the glenohumeral joint that promote a near global range of motion and purposeful function [69]. External loads transferred to the shoulder girdle are initially offset by joint surface anatomy, joint volume, atmospheric pressure, and joint fluid cohesion and adhesion [69]. Moderate and large loads are counterbalanced by the deltoid and rotator cuff and by the capsulolabral and bone structures, respectively [69]. The glenohumeral joint depends on static and dynamic stabilizers for movement and stability, especially the rotator cuff [81]. The rotator cuff stabilizes the glenohumeral joint while allowing greater freedom of motion and fixes the fulcrum of the upper extremity against which the deltoid can contract and elevate the humerus [81]. The rotator cuff must act simultaneously and synergistically with the deltoid muscle for normal function [81].

The bony anatomy contributes little to stability and has been compared with a golf ball on a tee [82]. Most of the stability of the shoulder is provided by the surrounding muscles and ligaments due to very little bony constraint [82]. The glenoid is encircled by the labrum, composed of dense fibrocartilaginous tissue, which increases the depth of the socket by 50% around the humeral head and increases stability [82]. The glenoid articular surface and the labrum combine to create a socket that is approximately 9 mm deep in the superoinferior direction and 5 mm deep in the anteroposterior direction [82]. Adding the glenoid labrum increases the glenoid surface to 75% of the humeral head vertically and 57% horizontally [82]. The labrum affects the distribution of contact stresses when a compressive load is applied to the shoulder at 90 degrees of abduction [82].

Classification

The evidence provided does not describe a specific named classification system (e.g., Schatzker, AO/OTA) for the Latarjet procedure. Instead, it categorizes the procedure based on surgical approach, patient demographics, and outcome trajectories. The following sections organize these classification axes.

Surgical Approach: The open Latarjet procedure is the standard treatment for anterior instability, yielding the most reliable method of stabilization but carrying the highest complication rate [176]. Both open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures result in significant improvements in patient function and outcome scores, with low rates of recurrent instability and similar complication rates [8]. The 15 basics of the initial Latarjet procedure have virtually remained unchanged despite renewed interest driven by improved knowledge regarding long-term outcomes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics such as bone loss and participation in contact sports [3]. Research is increasingly focused on technical refinements, fixation alternatives, and individualized surgical planning [177].

Primary vs. Revision: Primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment [10]. Preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from the revision vs. primary Latarjet procedure [15]. Primary Latarjet was found to have lower rates of recurrence compared with salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%) [33]. The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate [34]. Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play but had higher complication rates [6].

Patient Demographics and Indications: The modified Latarjet procedure confirms the validity of the recommendation for patients with significant bone loss, achieving a 4.9% recurrence rate at a mean follow-up of 59 months [179]. In these cases, choosing the open Latarjet procedure leads to better clinical results [13]. The Latarjet procedure yielded low complication rates and comparably good outcomes in an adolescent cohort with more risk factors for recurrence than a control group [4]. In this challenging group of patients, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases; 72% return to their pre-operative sport type [29]. At a minimum of 2 year follow-up, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases; 72% return to pre-operative sport type [55]. Whereas female gender should not be a contraindication to the Latarjet procedure, selection of patients in this group may need to be more stringent [20].

Other Considerations: Arthroscopic examination before modified Latarjet reconstruction is recommended because it allows the surgeon to identify and arthroscopically address associated pathologic entities that are present in over two thirds of the cases [22]. The open Latarjet procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up [2]. Although most patients treated by an open Latarjet procedure have excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up, a minority have poorer outcomes, which are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors, rather than measures of the severity of instability [1]. The overall complication rate reported in an open Latarjet series is 18.6%; however, the rate of class 3 adverse events that required additional surgery or long-term medical treatment was only 4.9% [5]. The odds of requiring a reoperation or developing any post-operative complication were greater following Latarjet as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18].

Twenty years after the Latarjet procedure, arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases, but the majority of arthritis is mild [9]. The prevalence of postoperative development of arthritis is 17.6% at 20 years followup, but no severe arthritis like stage 4 [227]. Arthritic risk factors were old age at final follow-up, high demand sports activity after surgery and lateral overhang of coracoid bone graft [227]. Patients treated with Latarjet did not have any recurrences vs. 7 in the ABR group, however, revision rates were higher in Latarjet patients [52]. The Latarjet is a reliable procedure that has a low rate of redislocation and reoperation [62]. While both procedures achieved excellent functional outcomes, the Latarjet procedure was associated with lower redislocation rates and similar revision and reoperation rates [178]. Although the Latarjet group was worse in terms of bone defect, age, previous dislocations and ISIS score at baseline, recurrence was lower and quality of life scores were stable over time, contrary to the arthroscopic groups [183].

The Latarjet surgery was associated with favorable results and a low rate of complications regardless of the type of fixation used [150]. Open traditional Latarjet procedure using 32-mm and 30-mm long cannulated screws in males and females, respectively, provided good outcomes with acceptable complication rates [181]. Screw removal after the open Latarjet procedure does not substantially affect functional outcomes [65]. The Latarjet procedure resulted in consistent and clinically significant alterations in the anatomic relationships of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves, which may make them vulnerable to injury during revision surgery [174].

Clinical Presentation

Patients presenting for an open Latarjet procedure generally achieve excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up [1]. However, a minority experience poorer results, which are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors rather than measures of the severity of instability [1]. In adolescent cohorts with more risk factors for recurrence than a control group, the procedure yielded low complication rates [4]. Conversely, one open Latarjet series reported an overall complication rate of 18.6% [5]. Within that series, the rate of class 3 adverse events requiring additional surgery or long-term medical treatment was 4.9% [5]. Female patients undergoing the procedure have similar complication rates to male patients [112]. However, female patients have a greater rate of emergency department visits postoperatively compared to male patients [112].

Functional Outcomes and Return to Activity

Patients who undergo open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure can expect high rates of return to work [119]. Return to work after the Latarjet procedure is dictated by occupation [119]. In a study on return to work, fifty-one patients were employed within 3 years before surgery and comprised the final cohort [7]. Occupational intensity was divided into high, moderate, low, or sedentary occupations based on the United States Department of Labor classification [7]. Patients can also expect high rates of return to sport [119]. Return to sport after the Latarjet procedure is influenced by the sport and position played [119]. A large majority of patients were able to return to sport following the procedure [120]. Some patients experienced limitation with throwing following the Latarjet procedure [120]. Some patients experienced limitation with return to sport at the preinjury level following the procedure [120]. By 8 months following the Latarjet procedure, 73% of patients had resumed their main sport [123].

In a challenging group of contact and collision athletes, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases [29]. In this same group, 72% return to their pre-operative sport type following the procedure [29]. Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play compared to other revision anterior shoulder stabilization procedures [6]. However, revision using Latarjet had higher complication rates compared to other revision anterior shoulder stabilization procedures [6]. After the Latarjet procedure, sports ability improves in approximately one-third of patients [125]. Sports ability remains the same in approximately one-third of patients [125]. Sports ability decreases in approximately one-third of patients [125].

Long-Term Outcomes and Arthropathy

Bristow-Latarjet surgery demonstrates excellent clinical results in most patients after 30 years of follow-up [42]. Twenty years after the Latarjet procedure, arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases [9]. The majority of arthritis developing or progressing twenty years after the procedure is mild [9]. Delayed problems associated with the Latarjet procedure may occur, most likely due to distortion of normal anatomy [25]. Post-Latarjet patients showed reduced range of motion in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty following a previous Latarjet procedure [16]. There were no sex-based differences in functional outcomes at a minimum 24-month follow-up after the open Latarjet procedure [43]. Long-term differences in functional outcomes at mean 75 months after the open Latarjet procedure were inconclusive regarding sex-based differences [43].

Stability and Recurrence

Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes for those with primary shoulder instability [54]. Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes for those with recurrent instability [54]. Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes for those undergoing open Latarjet for failed prior instability surgery [54]. Open Latarjet results in low recurrence rates for those with primary shoulder instability [54]. Open Latarjet results in low recurrence rates for those with recurrent instability [54]. Open Latarjet results in low recurrence rates for those undergoing open Latarjet for failed prior instability surgery [54]. 4.9% of patients treated with primary Latarjet experienced recurrent anterior instability postoperatively [12]. Patients treated with Latarjet did not have any recurrences in a comparison with primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with 10%-20% glenoid bone loss at a minimum 2-year follow-up [52]. Revision rates were higher in Latarjet patients compared to primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with 10%-20% glenoid bone loss at a minimum 2-year follow-up [52].

Indications and Surgical Considerations

Choosing the open Latarjet procedure leads to better clinical results in cases of traumatic bony Bankart lesion [13]. Latarjet is an effective procedure for management of significant humeral or glenoid bone loss in chronic cases [47]. The non-anatomic Latarjet procedure exhibits excellent outcomes in adolescent patients similar to adults [23]. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures provide satisfactory clinical results [26]. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure provides good clinical results at short-term follow-up [32]. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure provides good radiologic results at short-term follow-up [32]. Diagnostic imaging may not reliably correlate with diagnostic arthroscopic findings at the time of a Latarjet procedure from both a bony perspective and a soft-tissue perspective [39]. Arthroscopy performed in conjunction with open Latarjet is an effective tool in identifying intra-articular pathology [46]. Arthroscopy performed in conjunction with open Latarjet may alter surgical management [46]. Patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure with an associated SLAP tear more frequently reported postoperative pain than those without a SLAP lesion [41].

Revision and Failure Management

A failed Latarjet procedure can be treated with various revision procedures, which result in improvements in patient-reported outcome measures [45]. These revision procedures result in improvements in pain [45]. They result in improvements in return to sports [45]. They result in decreased recurrent instability [45]. They result in a moderate complication rate [45]. Patients can be consulted regarding early arthroscopic intervention soon after the shoulder dislocation becomes recurrent in contrast to waiting too long to require a more extensive Latarjet procedure [129]. Outcomes are comparable between early arthroscopic intervention and waiting for a more extensive Latarjet procedure [129]. Latarjet surgery in female athletes showed high rates of return to sports [121]. Latarjet surgery in female athletes showed improved functional scores [121]. Latarjet surgery in female athletes did not impair range of motion after the procedure [121].

Investigations

Plain radiography: Standard radiographs provide an overview of bony anatomy, humeral head orientation relative to the glenoid, and initial assessment for bony Bankart and Hill–Sachs lesions [98]. The purpose of shoulder imaging is to help establish the diagnosis, determine the severity of the pathoanatomy, assist in surgical planning, and enable the surgeon to illustrate the condition of the shoulder to the patient [38]. Standardized plain films are almost always sufficient to garner the information needed for shoulder evaluation [38]. The axillary view is necessary to evaluate glenohumeral joint instability and determine the position of the humeral head in the glenoid fossa [96]. This view enables the evaluation of anterior or posterior humeral head subluxation or dislocation [98]. Clinical concerns of anterior or posterior glenohumeral subluxation/dislocation and osseous Bankart lesions are best evaluated with the axillary view [98]. In a systematic review of posterior shoulder dislocations, 73% of patients had a missed initial diagnosis due to the lack of an axillary view, Y view, or CT imaging [98]. Specific views are indicated for targeted assessments: the Stryker Notch view evaluates Hill–Sachs lesions after dislocation [96]; the West Point view evaluates anterior glenoid bone loss [96]; and the apical oblique view evaluates for glenoid rim fracture in instability [96].

CT: CT with three-dimensional reconstructions is the advanced imaging study of choice for determining the extent of glenoid bone loss in the setting of shoulder instability [96]. CT imaging is frequently used to assess for bony lesions in recurrent instability cases [95]. Preoperative advanced imaging measurements can accurately predict whether an off-track Hill-Sachs can be converted to on-track after Latarjet procedure [169]. A standardized CT scan analysis after Latarjet procedure accurately describes graft positioning in the axial plane with good intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility [175]. CT scans may offer increased precision in the measurement of glenoid version, but this precision does not necessarily improve the quality of the surgery or the clinical outcome [38].

MRI: MRI is utilized for the evaluation of soft tissues in patients with anterior shoulder instability [93]. MR accuracy in identifying labral and rotator cuff tears ranges from 70% to 100% [93]. T1-weighted MRI can reveal Hill–Sachs lesions [95], while T2-weighted MRI provides better visualization of full thickness rotator cuff tears [95]. MR arthrography (MRA) is considered the benchmark for evaluation of labral tears [95]. MRA has greater diagnostic test accuracy for the detection of glenoid labral lesions compared to MRI, with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 93% versus 76% and 87% for MRI [93].

Arthroscopy: Arthroscopic examination before modified Latarjet reconstruction is recommended because it allows the surgeon to identify and arthroscopically address associated pathologic entities present in over two thirds of cases [22]. Arthroscopy performed in conjunction with open Latarjet is an effective tool in identifying intra-articular pathology and may alter surgical management [46]. Arthroscopy is useful for diagnosing and treating subacromial impingement, intra-articular lesions, detachment of the glenoid labrum, and rotator cuff tears [89].

Ultrasonography: Ultrasonography is a low-cost alternative to MRI and arthrography for evaluating both skeletal and soft-tissue structures of the shoulder [95]. It can provide immediate, real-time visualization of the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, and calcific deposits [95]. Ultrasonography is a simple and accurate test for identifying rotator cuff tears and calcific tendinitis [89]. However, it is highly operator dependent and is not as useful for evaluating labral tears or rotator cuff tears that are very small or larger than 3 cm [95].

Other Considerations: Diagnostic imaging may not reliably correlate with diagnostic arthroscopic findings at the time of a Latarjet procedure from both a bony and soft-tissue perspective [39].

Treatment

Non-Operative

The provided evidence base does not detail specific conservative management protocols such as weight loss, physical therapy regimens, NSAIDs, or injections. The Latarjet procedure is indicated for patients with recurrent shoulder instability, often following failed non-operative management or prior surgical interventions [118, 138].

Operative

Indications: The open Latarjet procedure is effective and safe for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability, yielding good to excellent outcomes in 87.9% of cases [118]. It is particularly effective for anterior shoulder instability with marked glenoid bone loss [144] and for managing significant humeral or glenoid bone loss in chronic cases of neglected anterior shoulder dislocation [47]. The procedure provides a higher success rate in patients with multiple recurrences regarding both shoulder stability and function compared to capsulolabral repair procedures [141]. In cases of traumatic bony Bankart lesion, choosing the open Latarjet procedure leads to better clinical results compared to arthroscopic repair [13]. Voluntary anterior dislocators or subluxators are absolute contraindications to the Latarjet procedure because laxity is difficult to correct by surgery [166].

Surgical Approach / Technique: Surgeons should choose the Latarjet technique that works best in their hands, as classic and congruent-arc techniques are equally safe and effective [154]. The Congruent arc Latarjet procedure is associated with a high percentage of return to sport, excellent functional outcomes, and a low rate of recurrences after a minimum follow-up of 10 years [67]. The modified nonsplitting Latarjet technique simplifies the procedure substantially and reduces the duration of the surgical procedure [200]. A subscapularis sparing minimally invasive Latarjet is a reliable technique that gives good medium-term radiological and functional results [68]. Data on the size and morphology of the coracoid and glenoid in pediatric and adolescent patients can help guide patient selection for the Latarjet procedure [156].

Implant Selection: Nonrigid suture fixation using a cortical button device offers an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation for the Latarjet procedure with a high level of osseous healing and minimal graft migration [205].

Setting of Care: No serious adverse events were recorded in a prospective evaluation of the safety of open, minimally invasive shoulder stabilisation by the Latarjet procedure performed on an outpatient basis [212].

Rehabilitation and Return to Activity: Postoperative management varies by protocol. One regimen uses a shoulder sling with an abduction pillow for the first 4-6 weeks, with pendulum exercises and passive range of motion in the scapular plane permitted at week 2 [51]. Active-assisted range of motion is initiated at week 4, and gentle strengthening is allowed under the supervision of a physical therapist at week 6 [51]. Full return to activity is expected at approximately 4-6 months postoperatively, with contact and collision sports restricted until at least 6 months following surgery [51]. Another protocol secures the arm in a sling until weeks 4–6, limiting range of motion to 45° of abduction and flexion with external rotation to 0° for 3 weeks [172]. Abduction and flexion are increased to 90° in week 4, and range of motion is unlimited by the beginning of week 7 [172]. Patients are allowed to start strengthening and return to sports-related training after week 12, with high-risk sports and competition suspended for 5 months postoperatively [172]. A third approach involves arm sling immobilization for 6 weeks, with passive controlled pendulum movements starting at Week 1 and passive forward flexion and abduction initiated at Week 4 [191]. Active movement training begins at Week 6, strengthening exercises begin at Week 12, and return to sports is permitted after 16 weeks [191]. Graft union is assessed on CT at 12 weeks in the Latarjet group to facilitate a safe and early return to sports [191]. For arthroscopic Latarjet surgery, a sling is used for 3 weeks, followed by range of motion exercises as tolerated and physical therapy scheduled 6 weeks after surgery [193]. Absence of sling immobilization did not increase complication rates after open Latarjet, making sling immobilization optional [215]. No reduction in strength for shoulder flexion or internal shoulder rotation was observed following the Latarjet procedure [40].

Outcomes and Recurrence: The open Latarjet procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability, and low rates of surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up [2]. Outcomes at a mean of >6 years following a primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability were very good, with an overall recurrence rate of 4.7% [30]. The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability although associated with a slight limitation in external rotation [31]. The procedure reliably improves patient reported functional outcomes and leads to high levels of patient satisfaction for recurrent shoulder instability due to glenoid bone loss [143]. The Latarjet procedure yields low complication rates and comparably good outcomes in an adolescent cohort with more risk factors for recurrence than a control group [4]. In contact and collision athletes, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases, and 72% return to their pre-operative sport type [29]. A high rate of return to work by 3 months following Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability was observed in a cohort of employed patients [7].

Complications and Safety: The short-term complication rate within 90 days of surgery was 7.5% in a series of 133 patients [51]. An 11% complications rate was observed after the Latarjet procedure at up to 14 years follow-up [118]. The main limitation of the modified arthroscopic Latarjet for glenoid rim fracture fixation is the need for specific instrumentation, which may not be widely available [161].

Comparative Efficacy and Revision: Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates for those with primary shoulder instability, those with recurrent instability, and those undergoing open Latarjet for failed prior instability surgery [54]. Primary and salvage Latarjet may yield comparable efficacy in terms of complications, reoperations, the rate of return to sport, the time to return to sport, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion [50]. The Latarjet procedure is a viable and possibly superior alternative to the Bankart repair, offering greater stability with no significant increase in complication rate [58]. Latarjet was more effective in reducing recurrence with higher stability compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair and capsular shift [108]. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides a satisfactory option as a revision surgery with good to excellent objective as well as subjective patient-reported outcomes with a low recurrence and complication rates [59]. Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate are observed in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair [193]. Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure [15]. A failed Latarjet procedure can be treated with various revision procedures, which result in improvements in patient-reported outcome measures, pain, return to sports, and decreased recurrent instability with a moderate complication rate [45]. Shoulder arthroplasty appears to be the preferred option in the complex setting of a previous Latarjet procedure, although post-Latarjet patients showed reduced range of motion [16].

Other Considerations: Latarjet and coracoid transfer surgery varies greatly in its indications, technique, and postoperative care [49].

Complications

Overall Rates and Severity: The overall complication rate following the Latarjet procedure varies across studies, ranging from 0% to 25.7% [162]. A systematic review reports an overall rate of 6%-7% [113], while a large consecutive case series of 416 procedures found a rate of 5.0% [186]. Short-term complication rates within 90 days of surgery were 7.5% in a series of 133 patients [51] and 10.9% in a Dutch hospital cohort [44]. One open Latarjet series reported an overall complication rate of 18.6%, with a rate of class 3 adverse events requiring additional surgery or long-term medical treatment of 4.9% [5]. The open Latarjet procedure demonstrates good safety with a low risk of major complications when performed by an experienced shoulder surgeon in primary and revision settings [167], and provides acceptable long-term complication rates for skeletally immature patients [111]. Early post-operative nerve complications were infrequent, and the overall clinical complication rate was low in a single-surgeon series of primary open Latarjet procedures [53].

Arthroscopic vs. Open: The rate of adverse events in an arthroscopic Latarjet series was similar to that reported with the traditional open Latarjet [157]. The 90-day complication and readmission profile of arthroscopic Latarjet is similar to the open Latarjet procedure [116], and both procedures have similar complication rates [8]. With experience, surgeons achieved a decreased complication rate for both arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures [61].

Nerve Palsy: Neurologic injury was the most common complication in a large consecutive series, occurring in 3.1% of cases [186]. Thirteen neurologic injuries occurred to the axillary (seven), musculocutaneous (four), and suprascapular (two) nerves in a series of 416 procedures [186]. All but two patients with neurologic injuries had complete resolution of symptoms at the time of last follow-up [186]. Musculocutaneous nerve palsy occurred in 1 patient (overall rate 0.75%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51].

Infection: Six infections developed in a series of 416 procedures, including three superficial infections treated with oral antibiotics and three deep infections requiring irrigation and debridement with intravenous antibiotics [186]. Infection occurred in 2 patients (overall rate 1.50%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51]. The most common complications of the arthroscopic Latarjet include graft fracture, non-union, and infection, with rates less than 2% [188].

Instability: Recurrent instability occurred in 2 patients (overall rate 1.50%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51]. Intraoperative graft-related complications are a risk factor for recurrence in arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation [105].

Graft-Related Complications: The most common complication following the Latarjet procedure is graft-related [113]. Two early hardware-related complications were noted in a series of 416 procedures [186]. The most common complications of the arthroscopic Latarjet include graft fracture, non-union, and infection, with rates less than 2% [188].

Stiffness / Arthrofibrosis: Unresolved pain and stiffness occurred in 1 patient (overall rate 0.75%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51]. The Latarjet procedure is associated with a slight limitation in external rotation [31].

Long-Term and Degenerative Outcomes: Arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases twenty years after the Latarjet procedure, but the majority of arthritis is mild [9]. Revision using Latarjet had higher complication rates compared to other revision options [6].

Risk Factors and Modifiers: Increased age was associated with a higher overall complication rate in a large consecutive series [186]. History of prior surgery was not associated with immediate and early complications in a large consecutive series [186]. The 90-day complication rate after the Latarjet procedure was higher in female patients than in male patients [44]; however, female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure showed similar 90-day complication rates to a matched cohort of male patients [104].

Recovery

Light activity (weeks): The evidence provided does not specify a distinct week-range for light activity such as desk work or driving. However, the majority of patients (57.5%) undergoing open Latarjet achieved benefit within 6 months of surgery [218].

Full activity (months): The overall median time to achieve benefit following open Latarjet was 5.5 months [218]. The overall average time to achieve benefit following open Latarjet was 7.4 months [218].

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): The provided evidence does not define a specific month-range for the complete recovery or outcome plateau phase. Long-term data suggest that the benefits of the Latarjet procedure are durable [128].

Rehabilitation protocol: The provided evidence does not detail specific rehabilitation protocols, including PT phasing, immobilisation duration, weight-bearing/ROM progression, or sling/brace removal timing.

Functional milestones: The open Latarjet procedure demonstrates an improvement in the shoulder-related quality of life 3 months after surgery [48]. Outcomes at a mean of >6 years following a primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability were very good [30]. The Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability results in excellent functional outcomes at long-term follow-up [127]. The open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years is associated with good functional outcome [133]. The revision Latarjet provides excellent functional outcomes [135]. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure provides good clinical and radiologic results at short-term follow-up [32]. At early follow-up, arthroscopic Latarjet with cortical buttons yielded comparably good clinical and radiologic results to the conventional open Latarjet with screws [63].

Other Considerations: The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability [31]. Long-term data suggest that the benefits of the Latarjet procedure are durable [128]. The open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years is associated with stability [133]. The Latarjet procedure provides excellent long-term results for anterior glenohumeral instability [136]. The overall recurrence rate following a primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability was 4.7% at a mean of >6 years [30]. The revision Latarjet provides low rates of recurrence [135]. The Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases at a minimum of 2 year follow-up in contact and collision athletes [55]. The Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability results in a high rate of return to sport among athletes at long-term follow-up [127]. 72% of contact and collision athletes return to pre-operative sport type after the Latarjet procedure at a minimum of 2 year follow-up [55]. The revision Latarjet provides a high rate of return to sport among athletes [135]. The majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure [216]. The majority of studies showed no significant difference in timing of return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure [216].

The rate of class 3 adverse events that required additional surgery or long-term medical treatment after open Latarjet was 4.9% [5]. The 90-day complication rate after the Latarjet procedure was 10.9% [44]. Female patients have higher complication rates after the open Latarjet procedure compared with male patients [43]. The odds of requiring a reoperation following Latarjet were greater as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18]. The odds of developing any post-operative complication following Latarjet were greater as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18]. The odds of requiring a reoperation following Latarjet were greater as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the context of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss [19]. The odds of developing any post-operative complication following Latarjet were greater as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the context of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions with subcritical glenoid bone loss [19]. Early post-operative nerve complications after primary open Latarjet were infrequent [53]. The overall clinical complication rate after primary open Latarjet was low [53]. The revision Latarjet provides low rates of complications [135].

Arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases twenty years after the Latarjet procedure [9]. The majority of arthritis developing twenty years after the Latarjet procedure is mild [9]. The development of dislocation arthropathy after the Latarjet procedure correlates with surgery after the age of 40 [224]. The development of dislocation arthropathy after the Latarjet procedure correlates with lateral coracoid transfer in relation to the glenoid rim [224].

Poorer outcomes following an open Latarjet procedure are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors [1]. Poorer outcomes following an open Latarjet procedure are not mainly predictable from measures of the severity of instability [1].

With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures as measured by decreased operative time [61]. With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures as measured by decreased length of hospital stay [61]. With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures as measured by decreased complication rate [61]. The open Latarjet procedure has a steep learning curve with significant improvement in operative time after the first 15 cases [208]. There is a significant decrease in overall surgical time after the first 25 cases of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure [220]. After a short learning curve, the clinical outcomes of the Latarjet procedure appear to be satisfactory and reproducible [66].

Key Evidence

• [L3] Although most patients treated by an open Latarjet procedure have excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up, a minority have poorer outcomes, which are mainly predictable from pre-existing demographic factors, rather than measures of the severity of instability. [1] (10.1302/0301-620x.105b4.bjj-2022-1049.r1)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. [2] (10.1177/17585732221141062)
• [L5] The 15 basics of the initial Latarjet procedure have virtually remained unchanged despite renewed interest driven by improved knowledge regarding long-term outcomes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics such as bone loss and participation in contact sports. [3] (10.1136/jisakos-2017-000153)
• [L3] The Latarjet procedure yielded low complication rates and comparably good outcomes in an adolescent cohort with more risk factors for recurrence than a control group. [4] (10.1177/2325967118s00127)
• [L4] The overall complication rate reported in this open Latarjet series is 18.6%; however, the rate of class 3 adverse events that required additional surgery or long-term medical treatment was only 4.9%. [5] (10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.004)
• [L4] Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play but had higher complication rates. [6] (10.1177/2325967120982059)
• [L4] [7] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.06.027)
• [L1] Both the open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures result in significant improvements in patient function and outcome scores, with low rates of recurrent instability and similar complication rates. [8] (10.1177/0363546518759540)
• [L4] Twenty years after the Latarjet procedure, arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases, but the majority of arthritis is mild. [9] (10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.015)
• [L1] Based on the current evidence, primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication, and range of motion measurements than revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment. [10] (10.1016/j.jse.2023.07.002)
• [L3] Patients who underwent open Latarjet experienced significantly better long-term patients without any recurrence survivorship compared to isolated Bankart repairs despite patient selection without bone loss. [11] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.143)
• [L3] 4.9% of patients treated with primary Latarjet experienced recurrent anterior instability postoperatively. [12] (10.1177/2325967120s00378)
• [L3] In these cases, choosing the open Latarjet procedure leads to better clinical results. [13] (10.1177/03635465221076841)
• [L4] Recent reports have shown success with the Latarjet procedure, as indicated by patient satisfaction scores and a low rate of recurrent instability. [14] (10.1080/00913847.2015.1005543)
• [L4] Preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from the revision vs. primary Latarjet procedure. [15] (10.1016/j.otsr.2019.06.020)
• [L3] It appears to be the preferred option in this complex setting, although post-Latarjet patients showed reduced range of motion. [16] (10.1016/j.jseint.2025.101609)
• [L3] The odds of requiring a reoperation or developing any post-operative complication were greater following Latarjet as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. [18] (10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.046)
• [L3] The odds of requiring a reoperation or developing any post-operative complication were greater following Latarjet as compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. [19] (10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.045)
• [L4] Whereas female gender should not be a contraindication to the Latarjet procedure, selection of patients in this group may need to be more stringent. [20] (10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.030)
• [L4] Arthroscopic examination before modified Latarjet reconstruction is recommended because it allows the surgeon to identify and arthroscopically address associated pathologic entities that are present in over two thirds of the cases. [22] (10.1016/j.arthro.2007.11.021)
• [L4] The non-anatomic Latarjet procedure exhibits excellent outcomes in adolescents patients similar to adults. [23] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.155)
• [L4] Delayed problems associated with the Latarjet procedure may occur, most likely due to distortion of normal anatomy. [25] (10.1016/j.jse.2011.09.025)
• [L4] Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures provide satisfactory clinical results. [26] (10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.027)
• [L4] In this challenging group of patients, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases; 72% return to their pre-operative sport type. [29] (10.1177/2325967114s00015)
• [L4] Outcomes at a mean of >6 years following a primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability were very good, with an overall recurrence rate of 4.7%. [30] (10.2106/jbjs.19.01235)
• [L3] The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability although associated with a slight limitation in external rotation. [31] (10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.097)
• [L3] This study confirms that the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure provides good clinical and radiologic results at short-term follow-up. [32] (10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.007)
• [L3] Primary Latarjet was found to have lower rates of recurrence compared with salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%). [33] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.04.059)
• [L3] The decision to perform arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery should not be influenced by the potential risk of future complications as it provides comparable clinical outcomes to the primary Latarjet procedure with a low postoperative recurrence rate. [34] (10.1177/03635465231209986)
• [L4] Diagnostic imaging may not reliably correlate with diagnostic arthroscopic findings at the time of a Latarjet procedure from both a bony perspective and a soft-tissue perspective. [39] (10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.014)
• [L4] We did not observe any reduction in strength for shoulder flexion or internal shoulder rotation. [40] (10.1016/j.otsr.2020.04.012)
• [L3] Patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure with an associated SLAP tear more frequently reported postoperative pain than those without a SLAP lesion. [41] (10.1177/23259671231185199)
• [L4] Bristow-Latarjet surgery demonstrates excellent clinical results in most patients after 30 years of follow-up. [42] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.192)
• [L2] There were no sex-based differences in functional outcomes at a minimum 24-month follow-up after the open Latarjet procedure, and long-term differences in functional outcomes at mean 75 months were inconclusive. [43] (10.1002/arj.70088)
• [L4] The 90-day complication rate after the Latarjet procedure was 10.9% and was higher in female patients than in male patients. [44] (10.1016/j.jse.2022.11.015)
• [L1] A failed Latarjet procedure can be treated with various revision procedures, which result in improvements in patient-reported outcome measures, pain, return to sports, and decreased recurrent instability with a moderate complication rate. [45] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.07.031)
• [L4] Arthroscopy performed in conjunction with open Latarjet is an effective tool in identifying intra-articular pathology and may alter surgical management. [46] (10.1177/23259671261415839)
• [L5] Latarjet is an effective procedure for management of significant humeral or glenoid bone loss in these chronic cases. [47] (10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.06.005)
• [L3] This study emphasizes the short-term effects of the open Latarjet procedure, demonstrating an improvement in the shoulder-related quality of life 3 months after surgery. [48] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.037)
• [L4] Latarjet and coracoid transfer surgery varies greatly in its indications, technique, and postoperative care. [49] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.09.020)
• [L1] Primary and salvage Latarjet may yield comparable efficacy in terms of complications, reoperations, the rate of return to sport, the time to return to sport, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion. [50] (10.1186/s12891-024-07593-w)
• [L4] [51] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.022)
• [L3] Patients treated with Latarjet did not have any recurrences vs. 7 in the ABR group, however, revision rates were higher in Latarjet patients. [52] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.12.020)
• [L4] In this single-surgeon consecutive series of primary open Latarjet procedures, early post-operative nerve complications were infrequent, and the overall clinical complication rate was low. [53] (10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101710)
• [L3] Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates for those with primary shoulder instability, those with recurrent instability and those undergoing OL for failed prior instability surgery. [54] (10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.062)
• [L4] At a minimum of 2 year follow-up, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases; 72% return to pre-operative sport type. [55] (10.1016/j.arthro.2016.03.032)
• [L5] With appropriate patient selection, the Latarjet procedure can be expected to prevent recurrent anterior instability in approximately 99% of cases. [56] (10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.022)
• [L1] The Latarjet procedure is a viable and possibly superior alternative to the Bankart repair, offering greater stability with no significant increase in complication rate. [58] (10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.001)
• [L4] Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair seems to provide a satisfactory option as a revision surgery with good to excellent objective as well as subjective patient-reported outcomes with a low recurrence and complication rates. [59] (10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.042)
• [L5] As a result, it will allow surgeons who undertake an open Latarjet procedure to offer their patients the benefits associated with a suture-button fixation. [60] (10.1002/atn2.70182)
• [L4] With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures, as measured by decreased operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate. [61] (10.1177/2325967118786930)
• [L3] The Latarjet is a reliable procedure that has a low rate of redislocation and reoperation. [62] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.03.004)
• [L3] At early follow-up, arthroscopic Latarjet with cortical buttons yielded comparably good clinical and radiologic results to the conventional open Latarjet with screws. [63] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.049)
• [L3] Our results confirm that screw removal after the open Latarjet procedure does not substantially affect functional outcomes. [65] (10.1177/23259671251353768)
• [L4] After a short learning curve, the clinical outcomes of the Latarjet procedure appear to be satisfactory and reproducible. [66] (10.1007/s00167-015-3900-5)
• [L3] The Congruent arc Latarjet procedure is associated with a high percentage of return to sport, excellent functional outcomes and a low rate of recurrences after a minimum follow-up of 10 years. [67] (10.1016/j.jisako.2023.03.355)
• [L3] The treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral dislocation using a subscapularis sparing minimally invasive Latarjet is a reliable technique that gives good medium-term radiological and functional results. [68] (10.1007/s00264-018-3914-y)
• [L3] Female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder instability showed similar 90-day complication and 2-year secondary surgery rates to a matched cohort of male patients. [104] (10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.043)
• [L3] Arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation demonstrates satisfactory results in short-term follow-up; however, intraoperative graft-related complications are a risk factor for recurrence. [105] (10.1007/s00167-019-05400-x)
• [L3] Latarjet was more effective in reducing recurrence with higher stability. [108] (10.1186/s13018-019-1340-5)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure provides a low rate of recurrent instability with acceptable complication rates in the long term for skeletally immature patients. [111] (10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.039)
• [L5] Female patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure have similar complication rates to male patients but a greater rate of emergency department visits postoperatively, warranting specific attention during the postoperative period. [112] (10.1016/j.arthro.2024.04.018)
• [L4] The overall complication rate following the Latarjet procedure was 6%-7%, with the most common complication being graft-related. [113] (10.1016/j.jse.2021.01.024)
• [L3] The safety, and 90-day complication and readmission profile of arthroscopic Latarjet is similar to open Latarjet procedure. [116] (10.1007/s00167-020-06301-0)
• [L4] Open Latarjet procedure is an effective and safe method for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability, resulting in good to excellent outcomes in 87.9% of our cases. [118] (10.1007/s12306-021-00697-9)
• [L5] Patients who undergo open or arthroscopic Latarjet procedure can expect high rates of return to work and sport, though return to work is dictated by occupation and return to sport is influenced by the sport and position played. [119] (10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.071)
• [L4] Although a large majority of patients were able to return to sport following the Latarjet procedure, some patients experienced limitation with throwing and return to sport at the preinjury level. [120] (10.1016/j.jse.2021.04.020)
• [L4] Latarjet surgery in female athletes showed high rates of return to sports and improved functional scores without impairing range of motion after the procedure. [121] (10.1016/j.jseint.2022.01.007)
• [L4] By 8 months following the Latarjet procedure, 73% of patients had resumed their main sport. [123] (10.1007/s00167-021-06475-1)
• [L5] After the Latarjet procedure, sports ability improves in approximately one-third of patients, remains the same in one-third, and decreases in one-third. [125] (10.1016/j.arthro.2025.05.029)
• [L4] The Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability results in excellent functional outcomes at long-term and a high rate of return to sport among athletes. [127] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.028)
• [L4] The long-term data suggest that these benefits are durable, and the Latarjet procedure should be considered as a viable and reliable treatment option for anterior glenohumeral instability. [128] (10.1016/j.jseint.2025.04.033)
• [L3] Patients can be consulted regarding early arthroscopic intervention soon after the shoulder dislocation becomes recurrent in contrast to waiting too long to require a more extensive Latarjet procedure, albeit with comparable outcomes. [129] (10.1177/2325967124s00077)
• [L3] The open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years is associated with good functional outcome and stability. [133] (10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.003)
• [L4] This review shows that the revision Latarjet provides excellent functional outcomes, low rates of recurrence and complications, and a high rate of return to sport among athletes. [135] (10.1007/s00167-020-06155-6)
• [L3] Latarjet procedure for anterior glenohumeral instability provides excellent long-term results. [136] (10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.199)
• [L4] The Latarjet procedure has excellent outcomes and is safe for patients with recurrent shoulder instability. [138] (10.1016/j.jseint.2025.01.021)
• [L4] The Latarjet procedure provides a higher success rate in patients with multiple recurrences regarding both shoulder stability and function compared to capsulolabral repair procedures. [141] (10.1007/s00590-014-1558-1)
• [L3] The Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder instability due to glenoid bone loss reliably improves patient reported functional outcomes and leads to high levels of patient satisfaction. [143] (10.1177/2325967115s00151)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure is effective in treating anterior shoulder instability with marked glenoid bone loss. [144] (10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.039)
• [L3] The Latarjet surgery was associated with favorable results and a low rate of complications regardless of the type of fixation used. [150] (10.1177/17585732241227206)
• [L3] The odds of requiring a reoperation or developing any complication were greater following Latarjet versus arthroscopic Bankart repair. [151] (10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.027)
• [L5] Surgeons should choose the Latarjet technique that works best in their hands for their patients. [154] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.030)
• [L4] These data can help guide patient selection for the Latarjet procedure. [156] (10.1016/j.jseint.2023.02.014)
• [L4] The rate of adverse events reported in this arthroscopic series is not insignificant and is similar to that reported with the traditional open Latarjet. [157] (10.1016/j.arthro.2016.02.022)
• [L5] The main limitation is the need for specific instrumentation for the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure, which may not be widely available. [161] (10.1016/j.eats.2024.103293)
• [L3] The incidence of complications following the primary Latarjet procedure for shoulder instability was variable, ranging from 0% to 25.7%. [162] (10.1016/j.arthro.2023.05.024)
• [L4] [166] (10.1177/1758573217728716)
• [L4] When performed by an experienced shoulder surgeon, the open Latarjet procedure shows good safety with low risk of major complications in treating anterior shoulder instability in a primary and revision surgical setting. [167] (10.1002/arj.70066)
• [L4] Preoperative advanced imaging measurements can accurately predict whether an off-track Hill-Sachs can be converted to on-track after Latarjet procedure, further enhancing shoulder stability. [169] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.05.012)
• [L3] [172] (10.3390/jcm10235487)
• [L5] The Latarjet procedure resulted in consistent and clinically significant alterations in the anatomic relationships of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves, which may make them vulnerable to injury during revision surgery. [174] (10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.003)
• [L4] This standardized CT scan analysis after Latarjet procedure has shown to accurately describe graft positioning in the axial plane with both good intra-observer reproducibility and inter-observer reproducibility. [175] (10.1007/s00167-013-2651-4)
• [L2] The open Latarjet procedure yields the most reliable method of stabilization but the highest complication rate. [176] (10.2147/oajsm.s106983)
• [L5] The Latarjet procedure remains the standard treatment for anterior instability, with research increasingly focused on technical refinements, fixation alternatives, and individualized surgical planning. [177] (10.1016/j.asmr.2025.101160)
• [L3] While both procedures achieved excellent functional outcomes, the Latarjet procedure was associated with lower redislocation rates and similar revision and reoperation rates. [178] (10.1177/23259671261470584)
• [L4] The modified Latarjet procedure confirms the validity of the recommendation for patients with significant bone loss, achieving a 4.9% recurrence rate at a mean follow-up of 59 months. [179] (10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.009)
• [L3] Open traditional Latarjet procedure using 32-mm and 30-mm long cannulated screws in males and females, respectively, provided good outcomes with acceptable complication rates. [181] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.202)
• [L3] Although the Latarjet group was worse in terms of bone defect, age, previous dislocations and ISIS score at baseline, recurrence was lower and quality of life scores were stable over time, contrary to the arthroscopic groups. [183] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.129)
• [L4] [186] (10.1016/j.jse.2016.12.047)
• [L5] [188] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.002)
• [L3] [191] (10.1002/ksa.12333)
• [L4] [193] (10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.054)
• [L4] The modified nonsplitting Latarjet technique simplifies the procedure substantially and reduces the duration of the surgical procedure. [200] (10.1016/j.eats.2021.07.014)
• [L4] Nonrigid suture fixation using a cortical button device offers an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation for the Latarjet procedure with a high level of osseous healing and minimal graft migration. [205] (10.1177/2325967120964489)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure has a steep learning curve with significant improvement in operative time after the first 15 cases. [208] (10.5397/cise.2024.00199)
• [L3] No serious adverse events were recorded in this first French prospective evaluation of the safety of open, minimally invasive shoulder stabilisation by the Latarjet procedure performed on an outpatient basis. [212] (10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.019)
• [L1] Absence of sling immobilization did not increase complication rates after open Latarjet, making sling immobilization optional. [215] (10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.115)
• [L2] Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. [216] (10.1016/j.arthro.2023.04.017)
• [L3] The majority of patients (57.5%) undergoing open Latarjet achieved benefit within 6 months of surgery (overall median: 5.5 months; overall average: 7.4 months), with diminishing proportions at later timepoints. [218] (10.1177/2325967124s00097)
• [L4] There is a significant decrease in overall surgical time after the first 25 cases of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. [220] (10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.010)
• [L3] The development of dislocation arthropathy after the Latarjet procedure remains a source of concern in the long term and correlates with surgery after the age of 40 and lateral coracoid transfer in relation to the glenoid rim. [224] (10.1007/s00264-013-1848-y)
• [L3] [227] (10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.200)

See Also

• Shoulder Instability
• Rotator Cuff
• Shoulder Arthroplasty
• Calcific Tendinitis

References

[1] Factors affecting a patient’s experience following the open Latarjet procedure to treat recurrent anterior shoulder instability. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2023. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.105b4.bjj-2022-1049.r1

[2] Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure – a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Shoulder & Elbow. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/17585732221141062

[3] Review of Latarjet (1954) on the treatment of recurrent shoulder dislocations. Journal of ISAKOS. 2018. DOI: 10.1136/jisakos-2017-000153

[4] The Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability in Pediatric and Adolescent Athletes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118s00127

[5] Low rates of serious complications after open Latarjet procedure at short-term follow-up. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.004

[6] Return to Play After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120982059

[7] High Rate of Return to Work by 3 Months Following Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability. Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.06.027

[8] Open Versus Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/0363546518759540

[9] Long-term results of the Latarjet procedure for anterior instability of the shoulder. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.015

[10] Outcomes of primary Latarjet vs. revision Latarjet after prior surgery for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.07.002

[11] Long-Term Recurrence Rates After Isolated Arthroscopic Bankart In Selected Patients Without Preoperative Bone Loss Versus Open Latarjet A Matched-Pair Analysis. JSES International. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.143

[12] Risk Factors for Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability Following a Primary Latarjet Procedure: A Prospective Analysis of 358 Patients. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120s00378

[13] Bone Fragment Resorption and Clinical Outcomes of Traumatic Bony Bankart Lesion Treated With Arthroscopic Repair Versus Open Latarjet. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/03635465221076841

[14] Recurrent anterior shoulder instability: a review of the Latarjet procedure and its postoperative rehabilitation. The Physician and Sportsmedicine. 2015. DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2015.1005543

[15] Previous arthroscopic Bankart repair is an independent risk factor for an inferior outcome after Latarjet procedure. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.06.020

[16] Shoulder arthroplasty following a previous Latarjet procedure. JSES International. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2025.101609

[18] Paper #57: Complications Following Anterior Shoulder Instability Treatment: Bankart Repair Versus Latarjet. Arthroscopy. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.046

[19] Paper #56: Remplissage Versus Modified Latarjet for Off‐Track Hill‐Sachs Lesions with Subcritical Glenoid Bone Loss. Arthroscopy. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.045

[20] The modified Latarjet procedure in female patients: clinical outcomes and complications. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.030

[22] The Value of Arthroscopy Before an Open Modified Latarjet Reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.11.021

[23] Latarjet Procedure Is A Valuable Option For Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability In Adolescents. JSES International. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.155

[25] Delayed, transient musculocutaneous nerve palsy after the Latarjet procedure. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.09.025

[26] Subscapularis structural integrity and function after arthroscopic Latarjet procedure at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.027

[29] Clinical Outcomes Following the Latarjet Procedure in Contact and Collision Athletes. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/2325967114s00015

[30] Risk Factors for Recurrent Anterior Glenohumeral Instability and Clinical Failure Following Primary Latarjet Procedures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.19.01235

[31] Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A 24-Year Follow Up Study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.097

[32] Arthroscopic Latarjet Stabilization: Analysis of the Learning Curve in the First 90 Primary Cases: Early Clinical Results and Computed Tomography Evaluation. Arthroscopy. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.007

[33] Latarjet After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Results in Twice the Rate of Recurrent Instability Compared With Primary Latarjet. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.04.059

[34] Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet as a Revision Surgery After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231209986

[38] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Arthroscopic Management of Prearthritic and Arthritic Conditions of the Shoulder and the Postarthroplasty Shoulder > Radiographic Evaluation.

[39] Shoulder Arthroscopy in Conjunction With an Open Latarjet Procedure Can Identify Pathology That May Not Be Accounted for With Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.014

[40] Isokinetic evaluation of the shoulder and elbow after Latarjet procedure. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.04.012

[41] Outcomes After Open Latarjet in Patients With or Without SLAP Lesions. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231185199

[42] Clinical and radiological evaluation of the Bristow–Latarjet procedure in patients with 30 or more years of follow-up. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.192

[43] Female Patients Have Higher Complication Rates but Similar Functional Outcomes at Minimum 24 Months After the Open Latarjet Procedure Compared With Male Patients: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70088

[44] Ninety-day complication rate based on 532 Latarjet procedures in Dutch hospitals with different operation volumes. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.11.015

[45] Surgical options and clinical outcomes following a failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.07.031

[46] The Utility of Shoulder Arthroscopy at the Time of Open Latarjet. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671261415839

[47] A six months old neglected anterior shoulder dislocation managed by closed reduction and Latarjet procedure. Chinese Journal of Traumatology. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.06.005

[48] Effects of the open Latarjet procedure on shoulder kinematics and periscapular muscle activity 3 months postoperatively. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.037

[49] Shoulder Latarjet Surgery Shows Wide Variation in Reported Indications, Techniques, Perioperative Treatment, and Definition of Outcomes, Complications, and Failure: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.09.020

[50] Salvage Latarjet may provide worse outcomes in terms of recurrent instability and returning to sports compared to primary Latarjet: a systematic review of comparative studies. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2024. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07593-w

[51] Ninety-day complications following the Latarjet procedure. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.022

[52] Similar patient-reported outcomes but lower redislocation and higher revision rates following primary Latarjet vs. primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with 10%-20% glenoid bone loss at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.12.020

[53] Early post-operative nerve complications after primary open Latarjet: a single-surgeon series of 164 shoulders. JSES International. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101710

[54] Open Latarjet Procedure in Athletes Following Failed Prior Instability Surgery Results in Lower Rates of Return to Play. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.062

[55] Clinical Outcomes Following the Latarjet Procedure in Contact and Collision Athletes. Arthroscopy. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.03.032

[56] Open Latarjet procedure for management of bone loss in anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2011. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.022

[58] A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following two procedures for recurrent traumatic anterior instability of the shoulder: Latarjet procedure vs. Bankart repair. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.001

[59] Outcomes of Arthroscopic Latarjet As a Revision Procedure for Treatment of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability After Failed Arthroscopic Bankart Repair. A Case Series. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.042

[60] Open Latarjet Procedure Using Double Suture‐Button Fixation. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/atn2.70182

[61] The Learning Curve for the Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118786930

[62] An assessment of the clinical relevance of coracoid graft osteolysis following the Latarjet procedure: a clinical and radiological review. JSES International. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.03.004

[63] Latarjet procedure: open with screws or arthroscopic with cortical buttons? A retrospective cohort comparison of outcomes and complications. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.08.049

[65] Long-term Clinical Outcomes of Screw Removal Versus Unrevised Patients Following Open Latarjet Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Matched-Pair Analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.1177/23259671251353768

[66] Is the Latarjet procedure risky? Analysis of complications and learning curve. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3900-5

[67] Long Term Outcomes Of The Congruent Arc Latarjet Procedure Evaluation Of 96 Patients With A Minimum Follow Up Of 10 Years. Journal of ISAKOS. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jisako.2023.03.355

[68] Results of the Latarjet coracoid bone block procedure performed by mini invasive approach. International Orthopaedics. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3914-y

[69] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Shoulder and Elbow Specialty Clinic Workers’ Survey > ANATOMY.

[70] A Lange Medical Book Current Diagnosis Treatment In Orthopedics Fifth Edition. 2Musculoskeletal Trauma Surgery > SHOULDER AND ARM INJURIES.

[71] Rockwood And Green S Fractures In Adults. 29: Principles of Nonunion and Bone Defect Treatment > Applied Anatomy Related to Scapular Fractures.

[72] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Anatomy of the Shoulder, Arm, and Elbow > I. Shoulder.

[73] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Developmental Anatomy of the Shoulder and Anatomy of the Glenohumeral Joint > Bursae.

[75] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Developmental Anatomy of the Shoulder and Anatomy of the Glenohumeral Joint > EDITOR COMMENTARY.

[76] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Fractures, Dislocations, and Acquired Problems of the Shoulder in Children > FRACTURES OF THE PROXIMAL HUMERUS.

[77] Apley And Solomon S Concise System Of Orthopaedics And Trauma. DISORDERS OF THE ROTATOR CUFF.

[81] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. RECONSTRUCTIVE PROCEDURES OF THE SHOULDER AND ELBOW IN ADULTS > ANATOMY AND BIOMECHANICS.

[82] Campbell S Operative Orthopaedics 4 Volume Set. ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION WITH BONE-PATELLAR TENDON-BONE GRAFT > SHOULDER INJURIES > ANATOMY AND BIOMECHANICS.

[89] Apley And Solomon S Concise System Of Orthopaedics And Trauma. INVESTIGATION.

[93] Rockwood And Green S Fractures In Adults. 29: Principles of Nonunion and Bone Defect Treatment > Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Arthrography.

[95] Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 13 Ebook Without Multimedia. Shoulder Anatomy and Biomechanics, Clinical Evaluation, Imaging > Clinical Evaluation > Imaging.

[96] Aaos Comprehensive Orthopaedic Review 3. Imaging of the Shoulder and Elbow > I. Shoulder.

[98] Rockwood And Green S Fractures In Adults. 29: Principles of Nonunion and Bone Defect Treatment > Radiography.

[104] Female Patients Undergoing Latarjet Surgery Show Similar 2‐Year Secondary Surgery Rates but Greater Risk of Emergency Department Visits Compared With a Matched Cohort of Male Patients. Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.02.043

[105] Intraoperative graft‐related complications are a risk factor for recurrence in arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2019. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05400-x

[108] Comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes of three procedures for recurrent anterior shoulder instability: arthroscopic Bankart repair, capsular shift, and open Latarjet. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1340-5

[111] Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the open Latarjet procedure in skeletally immature patients. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.039

[112] Editorial Commentary: Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability Literature Shows Limited Reporting of Outcomes in Female Patients: Female Patients Show Similar Outcomes but Greater Rate of Emergency Department Visits and Possible Greater of Complications. Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.04.018

[113] Short-term complications of the Latarjet procedure: a systematic review. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.01.024

[116] No difference in 90‐day complication rate following open versus arthroscopic Latarjet procedure. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06301-0

[118] 11% complications rate after Latarjet procedure at up to 14 years follow-up. MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-021-00697-9

[119] Editorial Commentary : Patients Reliably Return to Work After Shoulder Latarjet Procedure. Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.071

[120] Return to sport following Latarjet glenoid reconstruction for anterior shoulder instability. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.04.020

[121] Evaluation of Latarjet procedure in female athletes: a 3-year follow-up prospective cohort study. JSES International. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.01.007

[123] Latarjet procedure enables 73% to return to play within 8 months depending on preoperative SIRSI and Rowe scores. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06475-1

[125] Editorial Commentary: Sports Ability After Latarjet Procedure Improves in Approximately One‐Third of Patients, Shows No Change in One‐Third, and Decreases in One‐Third. Arthroscopy. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2025.05.029

[127] Long-term outcomes of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review of studies at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.028

[128] Long-term outcomes of the Latarjet procedure in a North American population. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2025.04.033

[129] Poster 107: Arthroscopic Bankart Versus Open Latarjet: Short-To-Mid-Term Outcomes Of Recurrence And Complications in Patients With Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Dislocation. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/2325967124s00077

[133] Long-term results of the open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.003

[135] Low rate of recurrent instability following the open Latarjet procedure as a revision procedure for failed prior stabilization surgery. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06155-6

[136] Paper #194: Long‐Term Results of Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Anterior Glenohumeral Instability. Arthroscopy. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.199

[138] Functional outcome of patients treated with Latarjet procedure experience from resource limited setup. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2025.01.021

[141] Latarjet procedure in patients with multiple recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation and generalized ligamentous laxity. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-014-1558-1

[143] An Evaluation of the Clinical and Anatomic Predictors of Outcomes at a Minimum of 2 yrs Following the Latarjet Procedure for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability with Glenoid Bone Loss. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015. DOI: 10.1177/2325967115s00151

[144] Coracoid bone graft resorption after Latarjet procedure is underestimated: a new classification system and a clinical review with computed tomography evaluation. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.039

[150] Screw fixation versus suture-button fixation for the Latarjet procedure—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shoulder & Elbow. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/17585732241227206

[151] Complications Following Anterior Shoulder Instability Treatment: Bankart Repair Versus Latarjet. Arthroscopy. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.027

[154] Editorial Commentary: Classic and Congruent‐Arc Latarjet Techniques Are Equally Safe and Effective Procedures, so Choose Whichever Technique Works Best in Your Hands for Your Patients. Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.030

[156] Size and morphology of the coracoid and glenoid in pediatric and adolescent patients: implications for Latarjet procedure. JSES International. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2023.02.014

[157] Short‐term Complications of the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: A North American Experience. Arthroscopy. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.02.022

[161] Modified Arthroscopic Latarjet for Glenoid Rim Fracture Fixation. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103293

[162] Isolated Primary Latarjet Procedures for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in High Rates of Graft Resorption and Glenohumeral Degenerative Changes With Low Rates of Failure at a Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐Up: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.05.024

[166] Contraindications and complications of the Latarjet procedure. Shoulder & Elbow. 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1758573217728716

[167] Open Latarjet Yields a Low 90‐Day Complication Rate in Primary and Revision Shoulder Stabilization. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70066

[169] Preoperative imaging predicts coracoid graft size and restoration of the glenoid track in Latarjet procedures. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.05.012

[172] Biceps Brachii Alterations Following the Latarjet Procedure: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10235487

[174] The Latarjet coracoid process transfer procedure: alterations in the neurovascular structures. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.003

[175] Coracoid graft positioning in the Latarjet procedure. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2651-4

[176] Long-term outcomes of the Bankart and Latarjet repairs: a systematic review. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017. DOI: 10.2147/oajsm.s106983

[177] Current Research Regarding the Latarjet Procedure Is Focused on Technical Refinements, Fixation Alternatives, and Individualized Surgical Planning. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2025.101160

[178] Subjective Shoulder Instability Following Anterior Stabilization: Incidence and Time to Resolution After Latarjet Versus Bankart Repair. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1177/23259671261470584

[179] Results of Modified Latarjet Reconstruction in Patients With Anteroinferior Instability and Significant Bone Loss. Arthroscopy. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.08.009

[181] Clinical and radiographic outcomes using standard length of cannulated screws for traditional Latarjet procedure. JSES International. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.202

[183] Quality Of Life After Bankart, Bankart-Remplissage And Latarjet: Results Of A Prospective Multicenter Consecutive Cohort Study. JSES International. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.129

[186] Immediate and early complications of the open latarjet procedure: a large consecutive case series. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.12.047

[188] Arthroscopic Latarjet: Indications, Techniques, and Results. Arthroscopy. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.002

[191] Glenoid bone loss and Hill‐Sachs width percentage score are useful to select optimal operation for the treatment of glenohumeral instability in overhead athletes: Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage versus open Latarjet. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2024. DOI: 10.1002/ksa.12333

[193] Good clinical outcomes and low recurrence rate in patients undergoing arthroscopic revision Latarjet for failed arthroscopic Bankart repair. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.05.054

[200] Modified Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: Button Fixation Without Splitting of the Subscapularis. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2021.07.014

[205] Osseous Healing With Nonrigid Suture Fixation in the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120964489

[208] Learning curve for the open Latarjet procedure: a single-surgeon study. Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow. 2024. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2024.00199

[212] Outpatient Latarjet surgery for gleno-humeral instability: Prospective comparative assessment of feasibility and safety. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.019

[215] Is There A Benefit Of Sling Immobilization After Open Latarjet Surgery For Anterior Shoulder Instability? A Randomized Control Trial. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.115

[216] Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.04.017

[218] Poster 128: Time to Achievement of Clinically Significant Outcomes Following Open Latarjet. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/2325967124s00097

[220] Arthroscopic Latarjet Learning Curve: Operating Time Decreases After 25 Cases. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.11.010

[224] Risk factors for dislocation arthropathy after Latarjet procedure: a long-term study. International Orthopaedics. 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-1848-y

[227] Paper #195: Arthroscopic Repair of Irreparabale Large to Massive Rotator Cuff Tears With Low Grade Fatty Degeneration of the Infraspinatus: Patch Autograft Procedure Versus Partial Repair Procedure. Arthroscopy. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.200