Low Recurrence of Instability and Satisfying Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Various Surgical Treatments of Reverse Hill-Sachs Lesions in the Setting of Posterior Instability: A Systematic Review.
Systematic Review
To systematically review the literature and report the outcomes of various surgical treatments for reverse Hill-Sachs lesions (RHSL) in the setting of posterior shoulder instability./r/nPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. All studies assessing outcomes of surgical treatment of RHSL from inception to January 2023 were identified in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies reporting outcomes, minimum mean 1-year follow-up, and minimum Level IV evidence. Outcomes were assessed using Forest plots with random effects models using R software./r/nA total of 29 studies consisting of 291 patients were included with a mean age of 42 years (range 16-88 years), 87% male gender, and mean follow-up of 4.5 years. The mean size of impacted or affected cartilage was 35%, and time from injury to surgery was mean 15 weeks. Nearly all studies were Level IV evidence, and quality of studies was low. Random effect models were performed, and data are presented as range. A low incidence of instability was noted for all surgical techniques with good patient-reported outcome measures. Most studies reported outcomes of the modified McLaughlin procedure (13 studies, 126 patients) with overall Constant-Murley Score of 65 to 92. Trends were seen towards better Constant-Murley Score and external rotation with a shorter delay between injury, and when arthroscopic and joint preserving treatments were performed./r/nThis systematic review showed low rates of instability recurrence, reproducible range of motion, and favorable patient-reported outcome measures were reported following all treatments for RHSLs with posterior instability. There was a significant association between better outcomes and a shorter delay between injury and surgery. The level of evidence is limited, given the small and retrospective studies which can be explained by the rarity of these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
