Clinicians › Shoulder

Latarjet

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

118 citationsUpdated Oct 2026

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

Overview

The open Latarjet procedure remains a robust treatment for anterior shoulder instability, with most patients achieving excellent outcomes at mid-term follow-up [1]. While a minority experience poorer results, these are primarily predictable from pre-existing demographic factors rather than the severity of instability [1]. Long-term data confirm satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability, and low rates of surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up [2]. Recent reports further support the procedure's success through high patient satisfaction scores and low recurrence rates [14]. With appropriate patient selection, the Latarjet procedure can be expected to prevent recurrent anterior instability in approximately 99% of cases [57]. It serves as a viable, and possibly superior, alternative to Bankart repair, offering greater stability without a significant increase in complication rates [59].

Complication profiles vary by context. The overall complication rate in one open Latarjet series is 18.6%, with a 4.9% rate of class 3 adverse events requiring additional surgery or long-term medical treatment [3]. Adolescent cohorts demonstrate low complication rates and comparably good outcomes despite higher risk factors for recurrence [6]. Primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates compared to revision Latarjet after failed prior operative treatment, while maintaining similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication measurements, and range of motion [10]. Although primary Latarjet has lower recurrence rates (9.1%) compared to salvage procedures (20.7%) [32], primary and salvage Latarjet may yield comparable efficacy regarding complications, reoperations, return to sport, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion [50].

The procedure is indicated regardless of female gender, though selection may need to be more stringent in this population [20]. Both open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures result in significant improvements in patient function and outcome scores, low rates of recurrent instability, and similar complication rates [8]. Arthroscopic Latarjet stabilization as a revision surgery provides comparable clinical outcomes and low postoperative recurrence rates to primary Latarjet [33]. Compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair, the odds of requiring reoperation or developing any post-operative complication are greater following Latarjet [18, 152]. In complex settings involving previous Latarjet procedures, shoulder arthroplasty appears to be the preferred option, though post-Latarjet patients show reduced range of motion following arthroplasty [16].

Anatomy & Pathophysiology

Bony Anatomy

The glenoid is a convex structure of shallow depth shaped like an inverted pear [68]. It is connected to the flat body of the scapula by the scapular neck [70]. The glenoid cavity is a shallow socket, approximately one third the size of the humeral head [69]. The subchondral bone of the glenoid is relatively flat, with articular concavity augmented by cartilage and a circumferential labrum [71]. The glenoid averages 5° of retroversion in relation to the axis of the scapular body [71], with an inclination averaging 4.2 degrees (range –7 to 20 degrees) and version averaging 1.5 degrees retroversion (range 10.5 degrees anteversion to 9.5 degrees retroversion) [80]. The glenoid diameter ranges from 18-30 mm (superior anteroposterior) to 21-35 mm (inferior anteroposterior) and 30-48 mm (superoinferior height) [80]. The glenoid surface area is 4-6 mm, while the humeral head surface area is 11-19 mm [80]. The glenoid cartilage thickness is 2.16 mm, while the humeral head cartilage thickness is 1.44 mm [80]. The glenoid radius of curvature is 22-28 mm, while the humeral head radius of curvature is 23-28 mm [80]. The glenoid articular surface radius of curvature is 2 to 3 mm larger than that of the humeral head [80].

The scapula spans the second through seventh ribs and serves as an attachment for 17 muscles [82]. It is anteverted on the chest wall approximately 30 degrees relative to the body [82]. The scapula is attached to the axial skeleton by the acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joints [70]. The highest concentration of bony mass in the scapula is located in the glenoid, the scapular neck (including the base of the coracoid process), and the lateral border of the scapular body [70]. Two bony pillars transmit compressive forces from the glenoid fossa: the lateral pillar connects the inferior border of the glenoid with the inferior angle, and the spinal pillar arises from the central part of the glenoid and continues medially to become part of the base of the scapular spine [70]. The weakest bone in the scapula is located primarily in the central part of the biomechanical body, specifically in the infraspinous fossa [70]. The weakest area of the circumference of the biomechanical body of the scapula is the spinomedial angle, which is the connection of the scapular spine and the medial border of the scapula [70]. The scapula has only one true diarthrodial articulation, the acromioclavicular joint [71].

The coracoid process curves forwards from the superior surface of the scapular neck [70]. The coracoid process has undergone an increase in size over evolutionary time [78]. With the shoulder in 90 degrees of abduction, the coracoid extension over the glenohumeral joint can mechanically limit anterior translation of the humerus relative to the glenoid [78]. The acromion has three ossification centers: the metacromion (base), the mesoacromion (middle), and the preacromion (tip) [71]. Os acromiale results from incomplete fusion of secondary ossification centers, most commonly between the mesoacromion and meta-acromion [82].

The humeral head is spherical with a diameter of 37 to 57 mm [68]. The articular surface of the humeral head is essentially spherical, with an arc of approximately 160 degrees covered by articular cartilage [80]. The radius of curvature of the humeral head is approximately 25 mm and is slightly larger in men than in women [80]. The most superior portion of the articular surface of the humeral head averages 8 mm above the greater tuberosity [68]. The superior margin of the humeral head articular surface is normally superior to the top of the greater tuberosity by 8 to 10 mm [80]. The head height is approximately 5.6 cm above the superior border of the pectoralis major tendon [82]. Humeral version averages 29.8 degrees, with a range of 10 to 55 degrees [68]. The humeral head is retroverted an average of 30 degrees [69], or 30 degrees relative to the transepicondylar axis of the humerus [82]. The humeral head is inclined approximately 130 degrees with respect to the humeral shaft [68]. The neck-shaft angle measures an average of 135 degrees [69]. The average neck-shaft angle is 45 degrees (±5 degrees), with a range of 30 to 50 degrees [80]. The humeral head averages 19° of retroversion and 41° of inclination (neck-shaft angle) [71]. The medial (coronal) humeral offset is 4-14 mm, and the posterior (transverse) offset is –2 to 10 mm [80]. The distance from the lateral base of the coracoid process to the lateral margin of the greater tuberosity is called the lateral humeral offset [80].

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) [71]. The proximal humeral ossification centers fuse to the shaft at age 17 to 20 years [71]. The anatomic neck of the proximal humerus is located at the junction of the articular surface and the tuberosities [68]. The surgical neck represents an indistinct region (metadiaphyseal junction) below the tuberosities but above the humeral shaft [68]. The greater tuberosity serves as the attachment site for the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor tendons [68]. The lesser tuberosity serves as the attachment site for the subscapularis tendon [68]. The bicipital groove lies between the greater and lesser tuberosities and serves as a pathway for the long head of the biceps [68].

The clavicle is the first bone to ossify (fifth week of gestation) and is the only long bone to ossify by intramembranous ossification [71]. The medial (sternal) epiphysis of the clavicle is the last ossification center to fuse, at age 20 to 25 years [71]. The primary blood supply to the clavicle is periosteal, with no nutrient artery present [71].

Soft Tissue Anatomy

The rotator cuff consists of four muscles: the subscapularis, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor [69]. The teres major is not a rotator cuff muscle [69]. The rotator cuff muscles serve as depressors of the humeral head to allow the deltoid to efficiently abduct the humerus [69]. The infraspinatus and teres minor are external rotators, while the subscapularis is an internal rotator of the humerus [69]. The rotator cuff is a sheet of conjoined tendons closely applied over the shoulder capsule and inserting mainly into the greater tuberosity of the humerus, with the subscapularis inserted into the lesser tuberosity [76]. The rotator cuff has an important function in stabilizing the head of the humerus by pulling it firmly into the glenoid whenever the deltoid lifts the arm forwards or sideways [76]. The subscapularis originates from the anterior scapula and inserts anteriorly onto the lesser tuberosity [75]. The supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor originate from the posterior scapula and attach to the greater tuberosity [75].

The deltoid courses from the clavicle and acromion superiorly, coalescing into a common tendinous insertion onto the lateral upper third of the humeral shaft [75]. The pectoralis major inserts anteriorly onto the lateral wall of the bicipital groove and forms the roof of the distal continuation of the bicipital tunnel [75]. The coracobrachialis muscle and the short head of the biceps tendon originate from the coracoid process [71]. The pectoralis minor muscle inserts onto the medial coracoid process [71].

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 [72]. 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 [72]. The subscapular bursa is linked to the coracoid process by a suspensory ligament [72]. In 28% of specimens, the subscapular bursae merged with the subcoracoid bursae, forming a unique wide bursa [72]. The subscapular bursa often houses loose bodies in the shoulder and is a region where synovitis may be most intense [72].

The rotator interval is defined medially by the base of the coracoid, superiorly by the supraspinatus tendon, and inferiorly by the subscapularis tendon [71]. The rotator interval contains the coracohumeral ligament, the superior glenohumeral ligament, and the intra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon [71]. Laxity of the rotator interval results in inferior laxity (the sulcus sign), and contracture of the interval is seen with adhesive capsulitis [71]. The coracohumeral ligament restricts external rotation in adduction and is a static restraint to inferior and posterior translation in adduction and external rotation [71]. The superior glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against anterior translation with the arm at the side [71]. With the coracohumeral ligament, the superior glenohumeral ligament forms a pulley that provides restraint against medial subluxation of the long head of the biceps tendon [71]. The middle glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against anterior translation with the arm in external rotation and 45° of abduction [71]. 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 [71]. The posterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament is a primary static restraint against posterior-inferior translation in internal rotation and adduction [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 [68]. The rotator cuff, subacromial bursa, and subdeltoid bursa pass underneath the coracoacromial arch [68]. The coracoacromial ligament contributes to anterosuperior stability in rotator cuff deficiency and should be preserved with irreparable cuff tears to prevent anterosuperior escape [82]. The acromial branch of the thoracoacromial artery runs on the medial aspect of the coracoacromial ligament [82]. The coracoacromial ligament is the arthroscopic landmark for a complete release of the rotator interval for adhesive capsulitis [82].

The tendinous insertions of the rotator cuff muscles, the articular capsule, the coracohumeral ligament, and the glenohumeral ligament complex blend into a confluent sheet before insertion into the humeral tuberosities [81]. The tendons of the infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscles join approximately 15 mm proximal to their insertion and cannot be readily separated by blunt dissection [81]. The infraspinatus and teres minor fuse near their musculotendinous junctions [81]. The supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons join as a sheath that surrounds the biceps tendon at the entrance of the bicipital groove [81]. The roof of the biceps sheath consists of a portion of the supraspinatus tendon, and a sheet of the subscapularis tendon forms the floor [81]. 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 [81]. 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 [81]. A 1-cm wide thickening of fibrous tissue extends posteriorly from the coracohumeral ligament origin on the coracoid to the posterior margin [81]. The transverse humeral ligament is an important stabilizer of the biceps tendon [82].

Vascular & Neural Anatomy

The proximal humerus receives its blood supply from the anterior and posterior humeral circumflex branches from the third division of the axillary artery [68]. 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 (arcuate artery) [68]. 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 [68]. 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 [69]. The anterolateral ascending branch of the anterior humeral circumflex artery provides the primary blood supply to the humeral head [71]. The terminal intraosseous portion of the anterior humeral circumflex artery enters at the proximal aspect of the intertubercular groove as the arcuate artery [71]. Quantitative assessment has shown that 64% of the humeral head blood supply arises from the posterior humeral circumflex artery [75].

The axillary nerve is a terminal branch coming off the posterior cord of the brachial plexus just proximal to the coracoid process [74]. The axillary nerve passes beneath the conjoined tendon anterior to the subscapularis 3 to 5 mm medial to the musculotendinous junction and then adjacent to the inferior capsule before entering the quadrilateral space posteriorly [74]. The axillary nerve splits into the anterior and posterior branches within the quadrangular space [74]. The anterior and middle deltoid muscle receives sole innervation from the anterior branch of the axillary nerve [74]. 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% [74]. The posterior branch of the axillary nerve branches to supply the teres minor muscle and then terminates as the superior lateral brachial cutaneous nerve [74]. In the anterior deltopectoral approach, the axillary nerve can be palpated by sweeping a finger inferiorly across the subscapularis muscle tendon interface [74]. In the anterolateral deltoid splitting approach, the axillary nerve crosses approximately 5 cm inferior to the anterolateral acromial corner [74].

The superior transverse scapular ligament arises from the medial base of the coracoid overlying the suprascapular notch [71]. The suprascapular artery runs superior to the superior transverse scapular ligament, while the nerve runs deep to the ligament [71]. Entrapment of the suprascapular nerve at the superior transverse scapular ligament causes denervation of both the supraspinatus and the infraspinatus [71]. The spinoglenoid ligament overlies the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch [71]. Entrapment, traction, or compression of the suprascapular nerve at the spinoglenoid notch causes denervation of the infraspinatus [71].

Kinematics

Normal shoulder motion is approximately two-thirds glenohumeral and one-third scapulothoracic [71].

Classification

Graft Position: In the open Latarjet procedure, vertical graft position is classified as subequatorial (optimal) when 50% of the bone block is above the equator line [65]. Horizontal graft position is classified as flush (optimal) when the graft is aligned with the glenoid [65].

Samilson and Prieto: This system assesses glenohumeral osteoarthritis following Latarjet [226]. Grade 0 is defined as normal [230]. Grade 1 is defined as inferior humeral or glenoid osteophytes or both, measuring <3 mm in height [230]. Grade 2 is defined as inferior humeral or glenoid osteophytes, or both, between 3 and 7 mm in height, with slight glenohumeral joint irregularity [230]. Grade 3 is defined as inferior humeral or glenoid osteophytes, or both, >7 mm in height, with narrowing of the glenohumeral joint and sclerosis [230].

Graft Resorption: This classification grades graft resorption. Grade 0 is defined as no resorption [225]. Grade 1 is defined as resorption near the screw head [225]. Grade 2 is defined as resorption of most of the graft [225]. Grade 3 is defined as complete resorption [225].

Nonunion: Nonunion of the coracoid graft is defined as persistence of two distinct cortical profiles (graft and glenoid neck) and/or fragmentation of the graft [226].

Other Considerations: 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 [4]. The Latarjet procedure remains the standard treatment for anterior instability, with research increasingly focused on technical refinements, fixation alternatives, and individualized surgical planning [177].

Clinical Presentation

Patients presenting with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid deficiency are candidates for the Latarjet procedure [7]. The clinical workup begins with a history and physical examination designed to reproduce symptoms and interpret underlying pathology. Standard physical examination tests include the sulcus sign, apprehension test, and relocation tests [148]. A positive apprehension sign of the affected shoulder serves as a specific clinical indicator for surgery in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability [109]. Range of motion is assessed by evaluating the presence of hyperlaxity signs or subsequent stiffness [148].

Preoperative imaging is essential for characterizing bony and soft-tissue pathology. Radiographs are evaluated for secondary shoulder arthritis, large bone erosions on the humerus and anterior glenoid, and possible subluxation of the shoulder joint [148]. Computed tomography determines the presence and proportion of anterior glenoid bone loss, as well as the presence and extension of Hill-Sachs lesions [148]. Magnetic resonance imaging assesses the anterior labrum, associated capsular injury, and rotator cuff status [148].

Surgical decision-making relies on specific major criteria for bone graft transfers such as the Latarjet procedure. These criteria include: * Anterior glenoid bone loss: Greater than 15% [148]. * Bone loss pattern: An off-track bipolar bone loss pattern [148]. * Instability Severity Index Score (ISIS): A score greater than 6 [148].

Despite the utility of preoperative imaging, 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 [38]. Consequently, 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 [45]. Clinical outcomes are influenced by these associated findings; patients who underwent an open Latarjet procedure with an associated SLAP tear more frequently reported postoperative pain than those without a SLAP lesion [40].

Investigations

Plain radiography: Standardized plain films are almost always sufficient to garner the information needed for shoulder evaluation [37]. The standardized axillary view is referred to as the "truth view" because it demonstrates the glenohumeral relationships in the functional position of elevation [37].

MRI: MRI is utilized for evaluation of soft tissues in anterior shoulder instability, with accuracy in identifying labral and rotator cuff tears ranging from 70% to 100% [93]. MR arthrography has greater diagnostic test accuracy for the detection of glenoid labral lesions compared to MRI, with sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 93% versus MRI sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 87% [93]. The ABER position in MR arthrography has significantly higher sensitivity for detecting anteroinferior labral lesions than MRA in the neutral position [93].

CT: CT imaging is frequently used to assess for bony lesions in recurrent instability cases [95]. 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]. Preoperative advanced imaging measurements can accurately predict whether an off-track Hill-Sachs can be converted to on-track after Latarjet procedure [168]. Standardized CT scan analysis after Latarjet procedure accurately describes graft positioning in the axial plane with good intra-observer and inter-observer reproducibility [175].

Other Considerations: The purpose of imaging of the shoulder 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 [37]. Preoperative factors that facilitate proper screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure have been reported in a study evaluating the alpha angle of screw insertion [194]. Shoulder arthroscopy in conjunction with an open Latarjet procedure can identify pathology that may not be accounted for with magnetic resonance imaging [38].

Postoperative Monitoring: 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 open Latarjet procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up [2]. The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with anterior capsular reconstruction showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes after a minimum 5-year follow-up [169]. The Congruent arc Latarjet procedure is associated with excellent functional outcomes and a low rate of recurrences after a minimum follow-up of 10 years [203]. Screw removal after the open Latarjet procedure does not substantially affect functional outcomes [183]. High rates of postoperative complications and a high prevalence of radiographic degenerative changes of the glenohumeral joint were observed after a Latarjet procedure in an NFL scouting combine analysis [205].

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 data focuses exclusively on operative outcomes, surgical techniques, and post-operative rehabilitation following the Latarjet procedure.

Operative

Indications: The open Latarjet procedure is effective and safe for treating recurrent shoulder instability, yielding good to excellent outcomes in 87.9% of cases [118] and providing excellent outcomes for patients with recurrent instability [137]. It is particularly effective for anterior shoulder instability with marked glenoid bone loss [143] and serves as a viable, possibly superior alternative to Bankart repair by offering greater stability without a significant increase in complication rates [59]. The procedure is indicated for traumatic bony Bankart lesions, where it leads to better clinical results compared to arthroscopic repair [13], and for chronic cases of neglected anterior shoulder dislocation with significant humeral or glenoid bone loss [47]. It reliably improves patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction in patients with recurrent instability due to glenoid bone loss [142]. While female gender is not a contraindication, patient selection in this group may require more stringent criteria [20]. The procedure is also suitable for adolescent patients, exhibiting excellent outcomes similar to adults [23, 24] and low complication rates even in cohorts with higher recurrence risk factors [6].

Surgical Approach / Technique: The 15 basics of the initial Latarjet procedure have remained virtually unchanged despite renewed interest driven by improved knowledge of long-term outcomes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics [4]. Classic and congruent-arc Latarjet techniques are equally safe and effective; surgeons should select the technique that works best in their hands for their patients [155]. A subscapularis-sparing minimally invasive Latarjet is a reliable technique that provides good medium-term radiological and functional results [67]. The modified nonsplitting Latarjet technique substantially simplifies the procedure and reduces surgical duration [202]. Arthroscopic Latarjet procedures provide satisfactory clinical results [26], although the main limitation of the modified arthroscopic technique for glenoid rim fracture fixation is the need for specific instrumentation that may not be widely available [162].

Implant Selection: Nonrigid suture fixation using a cortical button device offers an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation, demonstrating a high level of osseous healing and minimal graft migration [206]. The use of double suture-button fixation allows surgeons performing an open Latarjet to offer patients the benefits associated with suture-button fixation [61].

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 [213].

Revision: Primary Latarjet presents reduced infection rates but similar clinical outcome measures, overall complication rates, and range of motion measurements compared to revision Latarjet performed after failed prior operative treatment [10]. Primary Latarjet has lower recurrence rates than salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%) [32], although preoperative bony pathology did not explain the worse outcome from revision versus primary procedures [15]. Primary and salvage Latarjet may yield comparable efficacy regarding complications, reoperations, return to sport, pain, shoulder function, and range of motion [50]. Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play but higher complication rates [5]. 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 primary Latarjet with a low postoperative recurrence rate [33]. Arthroscopic Latarjet after failed arthroscopic Bankart repair provides a satisfactory revision option with good to excellent objective and subjective outcomes, along with low recurrence and complication rates [60]. Open Latarjet results in excellent clinical outcomes and low recurrence rates for primary instability, recurrent instability, and failed prior instability surgery [55]. Shoulder arthroplasty appears to be the preferred option in the complex setting of post-Latarjet patients, although these patients showed reduced range of motion [16].

Other Considerations: The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability, although it is associated with a slight limitation in external rotation [30]. It provides a higher success rate in patients with multiple recurrences regarding both shoulder stability and function compared to capsulolabral repair procedures [140]. In contact and collision athletes, the procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases, with 72% returning to their pre-operative sport type [28]. The procedure is not void of potential complications that may be of greater entity, despite a very low risk of recurrence [35]. 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 [44].

Complications and Safety: The overall complication rate reported in one 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% [3]. In a series of 133 patients, the short-term complication rate within 90 days of surgery was 7.5% [51]. Of these complications, 6 required subsequent surgery, including recurrent instability in 2 cases (1.50%), infection in 2 cases (1.50%), musculocutaneous nerve palsy in 1 case (0.75%), and unresolved pain and stiffness in 1 case (0.75%) [51]. 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].

Rehabilitation and Return to Activity: A shoulder sling with an abduction pillow is used to support the arm for the first 4-6 weeks following surgery, 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]. In a prospective multicenter study, patients had their arm secured in a sling until weeks 4–6, with range of motion limited to 45° of abduction and flexion and external rotation to 0° for 3 weeks [171]. Abduction and flexion were increased to 90° in week 4, and range of motion was unlimited by the beginning of week 7 [171]. Patients were allowed to start strengthening and return to sports-related training after week 12, with high-risk sports and competition suspended for 5 months postoperatively [171]. Immediate self-rehabilitation without sling immobilization yielded superior functional scores at 2 years after a Latarjet procedure [167]. A high rate of return to work was observed by 3 months following Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability [7]. No reduction in strength for shoulder flexion or internal shoulder rotation was observed following the Latarjet procedure [39].

Complications

Overall Rates and Severity: The reported overall complication rate for the Latarjet procedure varies widely across literature, ranging from 0% to 25.7% [163]. Specific series report rates of 5.0% in a large consecutive case series of 416 procedures [188], 6%-7% with graft-related issues being most common [113], and 7.5% within 90 days in a series of 133 patients [51]. One open series reported an overall rate of 18.6%, with a 4.9% rate of class 3 adverse events requiring additional surgery or long-term medical treatment [3]. The 90-day complication rate was 10.9% in one cohort, though female patients showed similar 90-day complication and 2-year secondary surgery rates to a matched male cohort [43, 103]. When performed by an experienced shoulder surgeon, the open Latarjet procedure demonstrates good safety with a low risk of major complications in both primary and revision settings [165]. The safety and 90-day complication and readmission profile of arthroscopic Latarjet is similar to that of the open procedure [116, 158]. With experience, surgeons achieve proficiency measured by decreased operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate [62].

Neurologic Injury: Thirteen neurologic injuries (3.1%) occurred in a series of 416 procedures, affecting the axillary (seven), musculocutaneous (four), and suprascapular (two) nerves [188]. All but two patients with neurologic injuries had complete resolution of symptoms at the time of last follow-up [188]. Increased age was associated with a higher overall complication rate, including neurologic injury, while history of prior surgery was not [188]. In a series of 133 patients, musculocutaneous nerve palsy occurred in 1 patient (overall rate, 0.75%) within 90 days of surgery [51]. In a single-surgeon consecutive series of primary open Latarjet procedures, early post-operative nerve complications were infrequent, and the overall clinical complication rate was low [54]. Delayed problems associated with the Latarjet procedure may occur, most likely due to distortion of normal anatomy [25].

Infection: Six infections (1.4%) 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 [188]. In a separate series of 133 patients, infection occurred in 2 patients (overall rate, 1.50%) within 90 days of surgery [51].

Recurrent Instability and Failure: Recurrent instability occurred in 2 patients (overall rate, 1.50%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51]. Each of the 2 patients who experienced recurrent subluxation events ultimately required conversion to arthroplasty [51]. The overall recurrence rate at a mean of >6 years following a primary Latarjet procedure was 4.7% [29]. Intraoperative graft-related complications are a risk factor for recurrence in arthroscopic Latarjet stabilisation [104].

Graft and Hardware Complications: The most common complication following the Latarjet procedure is graft-related [113]. The most common complications include graft fracture, non-union, and infection, with rates less than 2% [190]. Two early hardware-related complications (0.05%) were noted in a series of 416 procedures [188]. Screw-related complications may occur at a greater rate after arthroscopic versus open Latarjet procedure [58].

Other Considerations: Unresolved pain and stiffness occurred in 1 patient (overall rate, 0.75%) within 90 days of surgery in a series of 133 patients [51]. Increased risk of short-term complications and venous thromboembolism was observed in Latarjet-Bristow procedures compared with Bankart repairs [191]. The open Latarjet procedure provides a low rate of recurrent instability with acceptable complication rates in the long term for skeletally immature patients [110].

Recovery

Light activity (weeks): The evidence does not specify a distinct week-range for light activity such as desk work or driving. However, short-term effects demonstrate an improvement in shoulder-related quality of life 3 months after surgery [48].

Full activity (months): The majority of patients (57.5%) undergoing open Latarjet achieved benefit within 6 months of surgery [218]. The overall median time to achieve benefit following open Latarjet was 5.5 months [218], while the overall average time to achieve benefit was 7.4 months [218].

Complete recovery / outcome plateau (months): The evidence does not define a specific month-range for the complete recovery plateau. Long-term data suggest that the benefits of the Latarjet procedure are durable [128], with excellent functional outcomes at long-term [127] and excellent long-term results [135]. Bristow-Latarjet surgery demonstrates excellent clinical results in most patients after 30 years of follow-up [41].

Rehabilitation protocol: The provided evidence does not detail specific rehabilitation protocols, immobilisation durations, or weight-bearing progressions.

Functional milestones: Outcomes at a mean of >6 years following a primary Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability were very good [29]. There were no sex-based differences in functional outcomes at a minimum 24-month follow-up after the open Latarjet procedure [42]. Long-term differences in functional outcomes at mean 75 months after the open Latarjet procedure were inconclusive regarding sex-based differences [42].

Other Considerations: Stability and Recurrence: The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability [30] and is associated with a slight limitation in external rotation [30]. The overall recurrence rate following a primary Latarjet procedure was 4.7% at a mean of >6 years [29]. The open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years is associated with good functional outcome [132] and stability [132]. The revision Latarjet provides excellent functional outcomes [134], low rates of recurrence [134], low rates of complications [134], and a high rate of return to sport among athletes [134].

Return to Activity: The Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability results in a high rate of return to sport among athletes [127]. At a minimum of 2 year follow-up, the Latarjet procedure successfully restores stability in 88% of cases in contact and collision athletes [56]. At a minimum of 2 year follow-up, 72% of contact and collision athletes return to pre-operative sport type following the Latarjet procedure [56]. 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].

Complications: The rate of class 3 adverse events that required additional surgery or long-term medical treatment after open Latarjet was 4.9% [3]. The 90-day complication rate after the Latarjet procedure was 10.9% [43]. The 90-day complication rate after the Latarjet procedure was higher in female patients than in male patients [43]. Female patients have higher complication rates after the open Latarjet procedure compared with male patients [42]. Early post-operative nerve complications after primary open Latarjet were infrequent [54]. The overall clinical complication rate after primary open Latarjet was low [54]. The odds of requiring a reoperation following Latarjet were greater compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18]. The odds of developing any post-operative complication following Latarjet were greater compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair [18].

Long-Term Joint Health: Twenty years after the Latarjet procedure, arthritis may develop or progress in 23.5% of cases [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 [228]. The development of dislocation arthropathy after the Latarjet procedure correlates with lateral coracoid transfer in relation to the glenoid rim [228].

Surgical Proficiency: With experience, surgeons achieved a level of proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures [62]. Proficiency in performing arthroscopic and open Latarjet procedures is measured by decreased operative time [62], decreased length of hospital stay [62], and decreased complication rate [62]. The open Latarjet procedure has a steep learning curve with significant improvement in operative time after the first 15 cases [209]. 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)
• [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%. [3] (10.1016/j.jse.2022.06.004)
• [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. [4] (10.1136/jisakos-2017-000153)
• [L4] Revision using Latarjet had the quickest time to return to play but had higher complication rates. [5] (10.1177/2325967120982059)
• [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. [6] (10.1177/2325967118s00127)
• [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.2017.08.045)
• [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)
• [L3] The non-anatomic Latarjet procedure exhibits excellent outcomes in adolescents patients similar to adults. [24] (10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100787)
• [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. [28] (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%. [29] (10.2106/jbjs.19.01235)
• [L3] The Latarjet procedure provides good long-term stability although associated with a slight limitation in external rotation. [30] (10.1016/j.jse.2021.03.097)
• [L3] Primary Latarjet was found to have lower rates of recurrence compared with salvage Latarjet procedures (9.1% versus 20.7%). [32] (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. [33] (10.1177/03635465231209986)
• [L4] [35] (10.1007/s12306-010-0060-0)
• [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. [38] (10.1016/j.asmr.2021.09.014)
• [L4] We did not observe any reduction in strength for shoulder flexion or internal shoulder rotation. [39] (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. [40] (10.1177/23259671231185199)
• [L4] Bristow-Latarjet surgery demonstrates excellent clinical results in most patients after 30 years of follow-up. [41] (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. [42] (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. [43] (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. [44] (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. [45] (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)
• [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. [54] (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. [55] (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. [56] (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. [57] (10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.022)
• [L1] [58] (10.1016/j.asmr.2023.04.010)
• [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. [59] (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. [60] (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. [61] (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. [62] (10.1177/2325967118786930)
• [L3] The Latarjet is a reliable procedure that has a low rate of redislocation and reoperation. [63] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.03.004)
• [L4] [65] (10.1016/j.xrrt.2026.100792)
• [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 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. [67] (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. [103] (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. [104] (10.1007/s00167-019-05400-x)
• [L3] [109] (10.1016/j.jse.2023.08.011)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure provides a low rate of recurrent instability with acceptable complication rates in the long term for skeletally immature patients. [110] (10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.039)
• [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)
• [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] The open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior shoulder instability in patients older than 40 years is associated with good functional outcome and stability. [132] (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. [134] (10.1007/s00167-020-06155-6)
• [L3] Latarjet procedure for anterior glenohumeral instability provides excellent long-term results. [135] (10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.199)
• [L4] The Latarjet procedure has excellent outcomes and is safe for patients with recurrent shoulder instability. [137] (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. [140] (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. [142] (10.1177/2325967115s00151)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure is effective in treating anterior shoulder instability with marked glenoid bone loss. [143] (10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.039)
• [L5] [148] (10.1016/j.eats.2023.02.027)
• [L3] The odds of requiring a reoperation or developing any complication were greater following Latarjet versus arthroscopic Bankart repair. [152] (10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.027)
• [L5] Surgeons should choose the Latarjet technique that works best in their hands for their patients. [155] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.030)
• [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. [158] (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. [162] (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%. [163] (10.1016/j.arthro.2023.05.024)
• [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. [165] (10.1002/arj.70066)
• [L1] Immediate self-rehabilitation without sling immobilization yielded superior functional scores at 2 years after a Latarjet procedure. [167] (10.2106/jbjs.25.00560)
• [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. [168] (10.1016/j.jseint.2024.05.012)
• [L4] The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with anterior capsular reconstruction showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes after a minimum 5-year follow-up. [169] (10.1002/arj.70126)
• [L3] [171] (10.3390/jcm10235487)
• [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)
• [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] Our results confirm that screw removal after the open Latarjet procedure does not substantially affect functional outcomes. [183] (10.1177/23259671251353768)
• [L4] [188] (10.1016/j.jse.2016.12.047)
• [L5] [190] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.002)
• [L3] [191] (10.1016/j.arthro.2020.10.039)
• [L3] To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the preoperative factors that facilitate proper screw fixation in the Latarjet procedure are reported. [194] (10.1177/03635465241290818)
• [L4] The modified nonsplitting Latarjet technique simplifies the procedure substantially and reduces the duration of the surgical procedure. [202] (10.1016/j.eats.2021.07.014)
• [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. [203] (10.1016/j.jisako.2023.03.355)
• [L4] High rates of postoperative complications and a high prevalence of radiographic degenerative changes of the glenohumeral joint were observed after a Latarjet procedure. [205] (10.1177/2325967117726045)
• [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. [206] (10.1177/2325967120964489)
• [L4] The open Latarjet procedure has a steep learning curve with significant improvement in operative time after the first 15 cases. [209] (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. [213] (10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.019)
• [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] [225] (10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101738)
• [L2] [226] (10.1055/s-0037-1603934)
• [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. [228] (10.1007/s00264-013-1848-y)
• [L4] [230] (10.2106/jbjs.15.00832)

See Also

• Shoulder Instability
• Shoulder Arthroplasty
• Os Acromiale
• Rotator Cuff
• Shoulder Arthritis
• Shoulder Arthroscopy

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] 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

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

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

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

[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 #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

[24] Latarjet Procedure is a Valuable Option for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability in Adolescents. Journal of ISAKOS. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100787

[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

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

[29] 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

[30] 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] 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

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

[35] The role of arthroscopy in the revision of failed Latarjet procedures. MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY. 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-010-0060-0

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

[38] 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

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

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

[41] 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

[42] 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

[43] 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

[44] 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

[45] 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

[54] 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

[55] 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

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

[57] 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] Screw‐Related Complications May Occur at a Greater Rate After Arthroscopic Versus Open Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.04.010

[59] 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

[60] 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

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

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

[63] 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

[65] Arthroscopic Latarjet using double suture-button fixation: learning curve, graft positioning, and complications – A two-center study of 80 patients. JSES Reviews, Reports, and Techniques. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2026.100792

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[78] Rockwood And Matsen S The Shoulder. Developmental Anatomy of the Shoulder and Anatomy of the Glenohumeral Joint > Development of Individual Regions.

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

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

[82] Miller S Review Of Orthopaedics. Genetics of musculoskeletal conditions and abnormalities are summarized in Table 1.27 > UPPER EXTREMITY > SHOULDER.

[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.

[103] 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

[104] 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

[109] Does previous arthroscopic Bankart repair influence coracoid graft osteolysis in Latarjet procedure? A case-control study with computed tomography scan data. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.08.011

[110] 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

[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

[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

[132] 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

[134] 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

[135] 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

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

[140] 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

[142] 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

[143] 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

[148] Use of 3D‐Printed Patient‐Specific Guide for Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability: Technical Note. Arthroscopy Techniques. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2023.02.027

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

[155] 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

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

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

[163] 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

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

[167] Immediate Self-Rehabilitation With Versus Without Sling Immobilization After Open Latarjet Procedures for Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2026. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.25.00560

[168] 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

[169] Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure With Anterior Capsular Reconstruction Provides Low Rates of Recurrence and Osteoarthritis at Minimum 5‐Year Follow‐Up. Arthroscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/arj.70126

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

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

[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

[183] 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

[188] 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

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

[191] Increased Risk of Short-Term Complications and Venous Thromboembolism in Latarjet-Bristow Procedures Compared With Bankart Repairs. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.10.039

[194] Evaluation of Preoperative Factors That Affect the Alpha Angle of Screw Insertion After the Open Latarjet Procedure. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024. DOI: 10.1177/03635465241290818

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

[203] 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

[205] The Latarjet Procedure at the National Football League Scouting Combine: An Imaging and Performance Analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017. DOI: 10.1177/2325967117726045

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

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

[213] 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

[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

[225] Arthroscopic double-screw Latarjet versus arthroscopic button-fixed Latarjet with Bankart repair. JSES International. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2026.101738

[226] Accuracy of Coracoid Bone Graft Placement: Open versus Arthroscopic Latarjet. Joints. 2017. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603934

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

[230] The Effectiveness of the Latarjet Procedure in Patients with Chronic Locked Anterior Shoulder Dislocation. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2016. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.15.00832