Table 4 Clinical results

Flurin et al. (2020) [15]

9 (20) showed a graft fracture

12 (26) showed complete graft lysis

12 (26) showed partial graft lysis

3 (6.5) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

Immobilization for 6 weeks in 45% of patients, 4 weeks in 21% and 3 weeks in 9%

Stability = 86%

Satisfaction = 80%

Rowe score = 76

Walch-Duplay score = 68

60% resumed sports;

19.5% to the same level

19.5% to a lower level

21% changed to another sport

40 (86) showed graft union

9 (20) showed partial graft lysis

3 (7) showed complete graft lysis

2 (4) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

2 (4) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

6 recurrences of instability

1 ulnar nerve impingement related to the immobilization

1 infection (Cutibacterium acnes)

1 bone block fracture revised by a second Eden–Hybinette procedure

Boileau et al. (2019) [20]

Pain score = 7

CS = 32

SSV = 31%

SSV for sport = 10%

5 (71) showed graft malpositioning

5 (71) showed graft nonunion

6 (86) showed partial resorption

3 (43) showed screw mobilization

3 (43) showed a broken screw

Neutral rotation sling for 2 weeks

Self-rehabilitation with pendulum exercises at 2 weeks

Rehabilitation with physiotherapist at 4 weeks

Heavy lifting at 12 weeks

Return to sports at 3–6 months

Pain score = 2.4

Constant score = 81.4

SSV = 87% (P < .001)

SSV for sport activities = 70% (P < .001)

Walch-Duplay = 85.7 (65–100)

Rowe scores = 86.4 (70–100)

FF = 176 (150–180)

ER = 56 (0–90)

Complete healing at 6 m

2 (29) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

3 showed hypoesthesia of the iliac crest

Khan et al. (2019) [21]

Sling, active-assisted FF and ER for 3 w after active ROM

Strengthening exercises at 6 weeks

83.3% success rate after Eden-Hybinette

77.8% success rate after arthroscopic approach

100% success rate after arthroscopic posterior stabilization

7/11 (64%) returned to the same level of sport

N/A

Provencer et al. (2019) [22]

11 (35.5%) showed recurrent shoulder dislocation

20 (64.5%) showed recurrent subluxation

FF = 152 (125 -170)

ABD = 110 (70 -160)

ER = 22.5 (10 -50)

ASES 40 ± 6.8 (10–70)

SANE 44 ± 7.2 (20–55)

WOSI 1300 ± 237 (1050–1995)

WOSI % normal 38.1 ± 11.3 (5–50)

24 (78) showed complete graft lysis

S–P  = mean 0.5 (0–3)

Mean glenoid bone loss of 30.3% (25–49%)

FF = 161° (140–175°, P = .001)

ABD = 138° (110–160°, P = .001)

ER = 37.6° (25–55°, P = .001)

ASES = 92 ± 2.2 (85–97, P = .001)

SANE = 91 ± 5.0 (80–100, P = .001)

WOSI = 310 ± 111 (42–630, P = .001)

WOSI % normal = 85.3 ± 5.3 (70–98, P = .001)

28 (90) showed graft union

3 (10) showed partial graft healing

24 (77) showed partial graft lysis

None

Lavoue et al. (2019) [16]

VAS = 5.8 ± 2 (0–9)

SSV = 51% ± 19 (5–90)

SSV sport = 44% ± 27 (0–80)

Rowe = 54 ± 28 (5–60)

Walch-Duplay = 17 ± 19 (−10–55)

FF = 168° ± 18° (90–180°)

ER = 53° ± 21° (20–100°)

11 (27) showed S–P grade 1–3 osteoarthritis

20 (49) graft nonunions

1 (2) showed complete graft lysis

11 (27) showed graft malpositioning

Neutral rotation sling, passive mobilization and pendulum exercise for 4 weeks

Active physiotherapy at 4 weeks

Return to sports at 3–6 m

VAS = 1.3 ± 2 (0–7) (P = .0001)

SSV = 83% ± 18 (20–100) (P = .0001)

SSV sport = 69% ± 24% (5–100%) (P < .05)

Rowe = 78 ± 24 (10–100) (P < .05)

Walch–Duplay = 76 ± 28 (−5 to 100) (P < .05)

FF = 172° ± 15° (110–200°) (P > .05)

ER = 58° ± 21° (10–90°) (P = .95)

34 (83%) were satisfied or very satisfied

29/36 (81%) patients returned to sport

16 (55%) returned to traumatic/overhead sport

23 (57) showed S–P grade 1–3 osteoarthritis (P = .02)

5 recurrences of instability

Willemot et al. (2018) [17]

11 (42) showed graft nonunion

6 (23) showed graft lysis

4 (15) showed graft/hardware malpositioning

5 (19) showed fracture and graft migration

7 (27) showed S–P grade 1 osteoarthritis

4 (15) showed S–P showed grade 2 osteoarthritis

3 (12) showed S–P grade 3 osteoarthritis

SSS = 60.2% ± 19.6%

WOSI scores = 709.3 ± 412.5 points

9 (46.1%) returned to prerevision level of sport

12 (46) showed S–P grade 1 osteoarthritis

3 (12) showed S–P grade 2 osteoarthritis

5 (19) showed S–P grade 3 osteoarthritis

3 recurrences of instability/subluxations

Giannakos et al. (2017) [23]

Rowe score = 16.25 ± 11.10

Walch–Duplay = 11.76 ± 17.10

4 (34) showed graft malpositioning

3 (25) showed graft nonunion

9 (75) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

3 (25) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

ABD pillow with pROM for 3 weeks

Active-assisted exercises at 3 weeks

Strengthening exercises at 6 weeks

Return to sports at 3 months

Walch–Duplay = 77 ± 22.7 (P < .0001)

Rowe = 78 ± 23.5 (P < .0001)

WOSI = 603 ± 399

Satisfaction = 67%

Stability = 83%

58% resumed sports;

33% at a lower level

7 (58) showed graft union

4 (33) showed graft nonunion

1 refused postoperative CT scan

8 (67) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

4 (33) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

4 arthroscopic hardware removals due to possible impingement with the humeral head

1 persistent brachial plexus neuropathy

1 screw breakage

Cuellar et al. (2016) [24]

12 (100%) showed inferior and/or anteroinferior apprehension, Gagey and jerk tests + contralateral hypermobility signs

2 showed polyarticular laxity signs

3 showed hypermobility in the posterior direction

7 showed drive-through sign (grade 2–3)

ER = 51.3° (45–55°)

CS = 44.9 ± 7.10

Pain score 2.38 ± 1.06

ADL = 8.9 ± 4.58

ROM = 16.8 ± 5.23

Strength during weight lifting = 16.9 ± 2.59

Rowe = 49.5 ± 10.1

VAS = 6.75 ± 1.17

5 (42) showed a loose or broken screw

2 (17) showed graft nonunion

2 (17) showed graft lysis

1 (8) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

2 (17) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

CS = 89.3 ± 12.6 (P < .0001)

Pain score = 14.1 ± 2.48 (P < .0001)

ADL = 18.5 ± 3.86 (P < .001)

ROM = 33.5 ± 9.38 (P < .0001)

Strength during weight lifting = 23.1 ± 3.72 (P < .01)

Rowe score = 80.9 ± 10.9 (P < .0001)

VAS score = 1.38 ± 1.06 (P < .0001)

N/A

None

Castagna et al. (2010) [25]

1 (6) showed degenerative bipolar arthritis

Sling and pendulum exercises for 1 month

Passive ROM at 1 month, avoiding forced ABD and ER

Active mobilization at 2 months

Return to contact sports at 6 months

CS = 78.4 ± 16.2 (40–100)

UCLA = 27.2 ± 6.9 (10–35)

ASES = 99.6 ± 14.7 (73–120)

Rowe score = 75.2 ± 25.3 (0–100)

VAS score = 2.9 ± 3.7 (0–9)

11 (61%) returned to previous sporting/working activities

N/A

3 recurrences (1 dislocation and 2 with subluxation/spraining)

Boileau et al. (2009) [18]

3 (14%) dislocation

12 (55%) subluxation

7 (32%) both

Walch–Duplay = 13.8 ± 17

Rowe = 15 ± 19

UCLA = 20.9 ± 6

Pain = 2.8

2 (9) showed a malunited glenoid fracture

6 (27) showed anteroinferior mild glenoid erosion

17 (77) showed a Hill–Sachs lesion

9 (41) showed graft malpositioning

3 (14) showed graft lysis

3 (14) showed graft fracture

1 (5) showed graft nonunion

3 (14) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

IR immobilization and pendulum exercises for 4 weeks. =Rehab with physiotherapist at 1 month (FF and ER limited to 45° until the 45th day)

Return to sports at 6 months

Walch–Duplay = 85 ± 21 (P < .0001)

Rowe = 81 ± 23 (P < .0001)

UCLA = 29.5 ± 7 (P < .0001)

Pain = 1.1 (P < .039)

Subjective shoulder value score = 83 ± 23% (50–100%)

17 (89%) very satisfied or satisfied, 1 unhappy

9 (47%) returned to the same level of sport

All returned to previous occupation

5 (26) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

1 showed sympathetic dystrophy

Lunn et al. (2008) [19]

FF = 170 (165–180)

ER = 70 (30–100)

Walch–Duplay score = 3 type 1, 14 type 2, 6 type 3, and 6 type 4

12 (35) showed graft malpositioning

13 (38) showed graft lysis

4 (12) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

2 (6) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

13 (38%) showed apprehension sign + subjective scoring = 20 (59%) excellent, 10 (29%) good, 3 (9%) fair, 1 (3%) poor

Walch–Duplay = 78 ± 21.3

Rowe = 82 ± 17.5

Satisfaction = 88%

Stability = 88%

94% resumed sports;

62% to the same level

32% to a lower level

6 (17) showed graft lysis

4 (12) showed S–P grade 1–2 osteoarthritis

6 (18) showed S–P grade 3–4 osteoarthritis

4 recurrences of instability

5 showed discomfort or hypoesthesia at the harvest site

1 superficial wound infection