There is No Difference in Return to Duty Following the Latarjet With Subscapularis Split Versus Tenotomy Technique in the Military Population.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the return to duty rates between subscapularis split versus subscapularis tenotomy approach to the Latarjet procedure in an active-duty military population.

METHODS

A total of 46 patients were identified. Thirty-six (87.8%) were able to be contacted and included in the study. Operative technique, time to return to duty, and postoperative range of motion were collected. Patients were contacted telephonically to collect information on recurrent dislocation and time to pass first physical fitness test postoperatively. The primary outcome was time to return to full-duty status designated by passing a Physical Fitness Test. Secondary outcomes were redislocations and final range of motion.

RESULTS

In total, 36 of 41 (87.8%) patients were able to be contacted. There was no difference in return to duty rates designated by completion of first Physical Fitness Test for both groups ( = .23). In the subscapularis split group, 22 of 23 patients returned to full-duty at an average of 8.0 months versus the tenotomy group, with 12 of 13 patients returned to full-duty at an average of 8.7 months. There was also no difference with re-dislocation incidence for both groups of 0.08 ( = .45). Both groups had one patient each who was unable to return to full duty. There were no differences in postoperative forward flexion and external rotation, but abduction was 9° higher in the split compared to the tenotomy group ( = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In the military patient with anterior glenohumeral instability, the Latarjet using the subscapularis split and subscapularis tenotomy approach demonstrate similar return to duty rates and similar duration to pass a standardized fitness assessment. There was no clinically significant difference in postoperative range of motion. Both approaches produce similar results clinically; and should be chosen based on surgeon preference.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.