Superior labral tears: repair versus biceps tenodesis

SLAP Tears: Treatment Algorithm

SLAP lesions can be significant pain generators in the shoulder. These injuries are the most common shoulder injury in overhead athletes, as repetitive overhead motion is the most common etiology of SLAP lesions. These lesions present a diagnostic and treatment challenge to patients and physicians. Factors to consider when discussing treatment options for SLAP lesions include age, type of sports activity, level of sports participation, and degree of symptoms. Nonoperative management is the first-line treatment for most young, active patients without history of trauma, mechanical symptoms, and/or demand for overhead activities. These conservative measures include rest, avoidance of aggravating factors, injections, and physical therapy focusing on correcting scapular dyskinesis, restoring range of motion and strength, and evaluating the biomechanical throwing motion. It has been reported that 40% of professional baseball players can successfully return to play after rehabilitation alone. Alternatively, operative treatment is reserved for failure of nonoperative treatment and those with persistent symptoms that prevent individuals from participating in sports activities or activities of daily living. The two most common operative treatment options include arthroscopic repair versus biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopic repair can be considered in younger athletes (<30 years old) and elite athletes who are involved in overhead sports (baseball, tennis, volleyball) and consists of repairing the labral anchor back to the superior glenoid rim with knotless anchor repair techniques. Alternatively, biceps tenodesis is the first-line treatment option for failed SLAP repairs, and as an index procedure, traditionally has been reserved for middle-aged individuals (>30 years old), patients receiving workers' compensation, nonoverhead athletes, or in those with concomitant rotator cuff tears. However, due to a relatively high failure rate of SLAP repairs, biceps tenodesis as an index procedure is gaining more popularity, as emerging evidence suggests encouraging functional outcomes and return-to-sport rates even in younger athletes.

Lower Reoperation and Higher Return-to-Sport Rates After Biceps Tenodesis Versus SLAP Repair in Young Patients: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes, return to sport, and adverse events after SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT) in a young patient population undergoing treatment of SLAP tears.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Web of Science databases for comparative studies discussing outcomes after SLAP repair and BT in patients younger than 40 years with at least 1 year of follow-up.

Results

Four studies were included, comprising a total of 274 patients who underwent treatment of SLAP tears with SLAP repair (169 patients) or BT (105 patients). Most patients were male patients (79.8%) and athletes (74.5%). Preoperative and postoperative pain visual analog scale scores decreased similarly in both groups (range, 6.6-6.7 preoperatively to 0.8-2.6 postoperatively in SLAP repair group vs 5.6-7.3 preoperatively to 0.7-1.9 postoperatively in BT group). Similar and substantial American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment score increases were observed after both procedures (range, 40.6-45.8 preoperatively to 75.4-92.0 postoperatively in SLAP repair vs 41.9-55.0 preoperatively to 85.7-91.2 postoperatively in BT group). Patient satisfaction rates were similar but showed slightly higher ranges after BT (8.5-8.8 vs 8.0-8.2). Rates of return to sport were higher after BT (63%-85% vs 50%-76%), with higher odds of returning to sport after BT reported by all studies. Surgical complications were rare after SLAP repair and BT. Rates of reoperation were substantially higher after SLAP repair (3%-15% vs 0%-6%), with 3 of 4 studies reporting no reoperations after BT. BT comprised 78% to 100% of reoperation procedures after SLAP repair.

Conclusions

Postoperative pain, function, and patient satisfaction were similar after SLAP repair and BT in patients younger than 40 years. There are higher rates of reoperation and lower rates of return to sport after SLAP repair than after BT.

Level of Evidence

Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

Arthroscopic Modified Double-Row Biceps Tenodesis versus Labral Repair for the Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Non-Overhead Athletes

Objective

To evaluate the postoperative efficacy and the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis versus labral repair.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in 56 patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions from March 2015 to November 2018. Thirty patients (male:female = 17:13) were treated with labral repair, and 26 patients (male:female = 15:11) were treated with modified double‐row biceps tenodesis. The average age of the labral repair group and the modified double‐row biceps tenodesis group were 42.8 ± 10.6 and 40.9 ± 10.2 years, respectively. Pre‐ and postoperative assessments with the visual analog scale (VAS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Additional outcome measures included patient satisfaction, the time to return to previous activities, workers' compensation status, and postoperative complications.

Results

At a 2‐year follow‐up, the tenodesis group showed significant differences in postoperative VAS (1.5 to 1.8, respectively; p = 0.008), patient satisfaction (92.3% vs. 46.7%, p < 0.001), and recovery time to return to their previous activities (6.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) compared to the labral repair group; however, there was no significant difference in postoperative ASES and UCLA scores between the two groups. Additionally, one patient in the tenodesis group developed persistent postoperative stiffness, which was resolved by conservative treatment. In the labral repair group, two patients presented with persistent postoperative night pain, three developed persistent postoperative stiffness, and two required a subsequent capsular release.

Conclusions

Compared with the labral repair group, the arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis showed more encouraging postoperative pain reduction, earlier recovery to previous activities, and higher patient satisfaction.

Disabled Throwing Shoulder: 2021 Update: Part 2-Pathomechanics and Treatment

The purpose of this paper is to provide updated information for sports healthcare specialists regarding the disabled throwing shoulder (DTS). A panel of experts, recognized for their experience and expertise in this field, was assembled to address and provide updated information on several topics that have been identified as key areas in creating the DTS spectrum. Each panel member submitted a concise presentation on one of the topics within these areas, each of which were then edited and sent back to the group for their comments and consensus agreement in each area. Part two presents the following consensus conclusions and summary findings regarding pathomechanics and treatment, including (1) internal impingement results from a combination of scapular protraction and humeral head translation; (2) the clinically significant labral injury that represents pathoanatomy can occur at any position around the glenoid, with posterior injuries most common; (3) meticulous history and physical examination, with a thorough kinetic chain assessment, is necessary to comprehensively identify all the factors in the DTS and clinically significant labral injury; (4) surgical treatment should be carefully performed, with specific indications and techniques incorporating low profile implants posterior to the biceps that avoid capsular constraint; (5) rehabilitation should correct all kinetic chain deficits while also developing high-functioning, throwing-specific motor patterns and proper distribution of loads and forces across all joints during throwing; and (6) injury risk modification must focus on individualized athlete workload to avoid overuse. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, expert opinion.

Disabled Throwing Shoulder 2021 Update: Part 1-Anatomy and Mechanics

The purpose of this article is to provide updated information for sports health care specialists regarding the Disabled Throwing Shoulder (DTS). A panel of experts, recognized for their experience and expertise in this field, was assembled to address and provide updated information on several topics that have been identified as key areas in creating the DTS spectrum. Each panel member submitted a concise presentation on one of the topics within these areas, each of which were then edited and sent back to the group for their comments and consensus agreement in each area. Part 1 presents the following consensus conclusions and summary findings regarding anatomy and mechanics, including: 1) The current understanding of the DTS identifies internal impingement, resulting from a combination of causative factors, as the final common pathway for the great majority of the labral pathoanatomy; 2) intact labral anatomy is pivotal for glenohumeral stability, but its structure does not control or adapt well to shear or translational loads; 3) the biceps plays an active role in dynamic glenohumeral stability by potentiating "concavity compression" of the glenohumeral joint; 4) the ultimate function of the kinetic chain is to optimize the launch window, the precise biomechanical time, and position for ball release to most effectively allow the ball to be thrown with maximum speed and accuracy, and kinetic chain function is most efficient when stride length is optimized; 5) overhead throwing athletes demonstrate adaptive bony, capsular, and muscular changes in the shoulder with repetitive throwing, and precise measurement of shoulder range of motion in internal rotation, external rotation, and external rotation with forearm pronation is essential to identify harmful and/or progressive deficits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Repair versus biceps tenodesis for the slap tears: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The ideal treatment algorithm is still controversial for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) tears. In this systematic review, we aimed to clarify and ascertain which treatment modality is effective and more usable in which conditions.

METHODS

In this systematic review, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines established for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. "SLAP or Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior" and "biceps tenodesis" search terms were used in The Cochrane Library database and Pubmed from their inception to the 30th of September 2020. A total of 2326 titles were screened and 2069 articles were removed because of their ineligibility. Full texts of 14 studies were screened and finally, six were suitable for the present systematic review. Demographic details and study characteristics, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, return to preinjury sports level, reoperation, stiffness, sling time and rehabilitation protocols were reviewed and compared between SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2326 titles were screened and six studies were detected eligible. Results of 287 patients (SLAP repair: 160, Biceps Tenodesis: 127) were reviewed in included six studies. Biceps tenodesis was showed as more satisfied technique in four of the studies but the statistical comparing results of two groups were not significantly different in each study. Different functional scoring systems used in the studies were not statistically significantly different between the groups. The percentage of return to sport and preinjury level is higher in biceps tenodesis in the five studies. The total reoperation rate for SLAP repair was 19/160 (12%) and biceps tenodesis was 7/127 (6%).

CONCLUSION

The biceps tenodesis has a higher return to preinjury sports level, higher patient satisfaction and lower reoperation rates but functional scores are similar between SLAP repair groups in patients with SLAP tear.

Reassessment of Relative Value in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Do Payment and Relative Value Units Reflect Reality?

BACKGROUD

Many U.S. health care institutions have adopted compensation models based on work relative value units (wRVUs) to standardize payments and incentivize providers. A major determinant of payment and wRVU assignments is operative time. We sought to determine whether differences in estimated operative times between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) contribute to payment and wRVU misvaluation for the most common shoulder/elbow procedures.

METHODS

We collected data on wRVUs, payments, and operative times from CMS for 29 types of isolated arthroscopic and open shoulder/elbow procedures. Using regression analysis, we compared relationships between these variables, in addition to median operative times reported by NSQIP (2013-2016). We then determined the relative valuation of each procedure based on operative time.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine percent of CMS operative time were longer than NSQIP time (R2 = 0.58), including, but not limited to, shoulder arthroplasty and arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The correlation between payments and operative times was stronger between CMS data (R2 = 0.61) than NSQIP data (R2 = 0.43). Similarly, the correlation between wRVUs and operative times was stronger when using CMS data (R2 = 0.87) than NSQIP data (R2 = 0.69). Nearly all arthroscopic shoulder procedures (aside from synovectomy, debridement, and decompression) were highly valued according to both datasets. Per NSQIP, compensation for revision total shoulder arthroplasty ($10.14/min; 0.26 wRVU/min) was higher than that for primary cases ($9.85, 0.23 wRVU/min) and nearly twice the CMS rate for revision cases ($5.84/min; 0.13 wRVU/min).

CONCLUSIONS

CMS may overestimate operative times compared to actual operative times as recorded by NSQIP. Shorter operative times may render certain procedures more highly valued than others. Case examples show that this can potentially affect patient care and incentivize higher compensating procedures per operative time when less-involved, shorter operations have similar patient-reported outcomes.

Arthroscopic treatment of type II superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions in a younger population: minimum 2-year outcomes are similar between SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

Compared to a relatively older population over 30-40 years of age, the efficacy of biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions in a younger population is not well studied. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between biceps tenodesis and labral repair for type II SLAP lesions in a young active population.

METHODS

Patients aged 15-40 who underwent primary arthroscopic biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair for type II SLAP tears between 2009 and 2016 were included. Shoulders with intraarticular chondral damage, full thickness rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff repair, labral repair outside of the superior labrum, bony subacromial decompression, and acromioclavicular joint resection were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Sports/Performing Arts Module (DASH-sport), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and satisfaction. Return to sport rates were also recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (20 tenodesis, 33 repair) were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in mean ASES, DASH-sport, VAS, and satisfaction between groups [ASES: tenodesis 86.3 vs. repair 86.4 (n.s.); DASH-sport: 11.0 vs. 22.5 (n.s.); VAS: 1.85 vs. 1.64 (n.s.); satisfaction: 8.50 vs. 8.00 (n.s.)]. Rate of return to pre-injury level of performance/competition in sport/physical activity was also similar between groups [tenodesis 63% vs. repair 50% (n.s.)].

CONCLUSIONS

In a young active population, primary arthroscopic biceps tenodesis is a viable surgical alternative to labral repair for type II SLAP lesions. The results of this study suggest that indications for arthroscopic tenodesis can safely be expanded to a younger patient group than has previously been demonstrated in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison between SLAP Repair and Biceps Tenodesis with Concomitant Rotator Cuff Repair in Patients Older than 45 Years: Minimum 2-Year Clinical and Imaging Outcomes

Backgroud

There is controversy over how to surgically treat symptomatic superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears in middle-aged patients with concomitant rotator cuff tears. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical and imaging outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT) each combined with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients older than 45 years who underwent arthroscopic surgery to manage concomitant SLAP tears and rotator cuff tears. In addition to ARCR, 17 patients underwent SLAP repair, whereas 18 patients underwent BT. Shoulder range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score were used for clinical assessment. The integrity of rotator cuff repair and change of superior labrum-biceps complex were evaluated by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

There was significant improvement in the pain VAS and all functional scores in both groups (p < 0.001) at a mean followup of 29.4 ± 11.4 months (range, 24–84 months) postoperatively. Shoulder ROM showed significant improvement postoperatively (p < 0.05). No significant difference in outcomes could be found between the 2 groups after surgery. The retear rate of rotator cuff repair on MRI was 11.8% in the SLAP repair group and 11.1% in the BT group.

Conclusions

In middle-aged patients with combined SLAP lesions and rotator cuff tears, both SLAP repair and BT can be safe adjuncts to ARCR.

Surgical management of type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions: a review of outcomes and prognostic indicators

A Type II SLAP (superior labrum anterior posterior) lesion is a tear of the superior glenoid labrum with involvement of the long head of the biceps tendon insertion. In patients that do not improve with conservative treatment, there is a great deal of variability in the surgical management of these injuries that includes arthroscopic SLAP repair, arthroscopic SLAP repair with biceps tenodesis, biceps tenodesis alone and biceps tenotomy. Each surgical technique has specific effects on a patient's postoperative course and functional recovery. Rehabilitation strategies may be best formulated on an individual basis with an open line of communication between the operating surgeon and the physical therapist. Despite an increased incidence in treatment, there is currently no consensus on the optimal surgical procedure or treatment algorithm for Type II SLAP injuries. However, in middle-aged or older patients (>35) with Type II SLAP tears, either arthroscopic suprapectoral or mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is recommended due to the higher failure rates observed with arthroscopic SLAP repair in this patient group. Although more patients present with a 'Popeye' sign after biceps tenotomy, long-term functional outcome is similar between biceps tenodesis compared to tenotomy. However, more patients will experience biceps fatigue or cramping after the tenotomy procedure. Biceps tenodesis is preferred in younger, more active patients, while tenotomy is preferred in the middle-aged or older and lower demand patients. The aim of this paper is to provide a brief description of the different surgical techniques employed to address Type II SLAP lesions (arthroscopic repair, biceps tenodesis, and biceps tenotomy) and provide a review of available literature regarding outcomes and prognostic factors associated with each technique.

Labral Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis for Primary Surgical Management of Type II Superior Labrum Anterior to Posterior Tears: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To examine the outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT) for the index treatment of isolated type II SLAP tears.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was performed in April 2018 for English-language studies that presented outcomes data on patients with isolated type II SLAP tears treated with either SLAP repair or BT at the primary surgical time point.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (i.e., 2 randomized control trials, 7 retrospective cohort, 3 prospective cohort, 4 case-control, and 7 case series) were included. Isolated type II SLAP tears were treated via SLAP repair in 781 patients with a mean age of 35 years (range, 22-58 years) and a mean postoperative follow-up of 35 months (range, 3-63 months). BT was performed in 100 patients with a mean age of 44 years (range, 18-64 years) and a mean postoperative follow-up of 32 months (range, 24-75 months). Similar postoperative scores were noted in both the SLAP repair and BT groups for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, University of California, Los Angeles, and visual analog scale pain scores. The rate of return to sports was 20% to 95% for SLAP repair and 73% to 100% for BT. Reoperation rates for SLAP repair and BT were 2.9% to 40% and 0% to 15.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that SLAP repair and BT are both acceptable as index treatment for isolated type II SLAP tears. SLAP repair remains the most commonly performed index procedure; however, BT appears equally efficacious and may represent an attractive alternative.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

Is arthroscopic repair superior to biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions? A meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies

Objective

Labral repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are routine operations for type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their superiority is lacking. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention.

Methods

The eight studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.

Results

Eight studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. The pooled results of UCLA score, SST score, and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of ASES score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention, and arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results, and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias.

Conclusions

Both arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis interventions had benefits in type II SLAP lesions. Arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment provides better clinical outcome in ASES score and satisfaction rate and comparable complications compared with arthroscopic repair treatment. In view of the heterogeneity and confounding factors, whether these conclusions are applicable should be further determined in future studies.

SLAP lesions, An Opinion Piece

SLAP lesions were first classified by Snyder in 1990. Results of treatment have been controversial without clear consensus. All have agreed that prospective studies would be useful. We conducted such a study between 2008 to 2114 that randomized treatment between sham surgery, biceps tenodesis and labral repair. No significant differences in results between the groups were found. Crossover between groups was only possible from the sham surgery group and this may introduce some degree of bias. However, the six month outcomes between all three groups before any crossover were statistically identical. Our results also do not favor biceps tenodesis versus SLAP repair when surgery is performed. Based on these results we have narrowed our indications for SLAP lesion surgery. We still treat some SLAP lesions surgically and individualize our treatment in each such cases. Most SLAP lesion patients, however, are ultimately treated non-operatively.

National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Evaluation, Management, and Outcomes of and Return-to- Play Criteria for Overhead Athletes With Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Injuries

OBJECTIVE

  To present recommendations for the diagnosis, management, outcomes, and return to play of athletes with superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) injuries.

BACKGROUND

  In overhead athletes, SLAP tears are common as either acute or chronic injuries. The clinical guidelines presented here were developed based on a systematic review of the current evidence and the consensus of the writing panel. Clinicians can use these guidelines to inform decision making regarding the diagnosis, acute and long-term conservative and surgical treatment, and expected outcomes of and return-to-play guidelines for athletes with SLAP injuries.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  Physical examination tests may aid diagnosis; 6 tests are recommended for confirming and 1 test is recommended for ruling out a SLAP lesion. Combinations of tests may be helpful to diagnose SLAP lesions. Clinical trials directly comparing outcomes between surgical and nonoperative management are absent; however, in cohort trials, the reports of function and return-to-sport outcomes are similar for each management approach. Nonoperative management that includes rehabilitation, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections is recommended as the first line of treatment. Rehabilitation should address deficits in shoulder internal rotation, total arc of motion, and horizontal-adduction motion, as well as periscapular and glenohumeral muscle strength, endurance, and neuromuscular control. Most researchers have examined the outcomes of surgical management and found high levels of satisfaction and return of shoulder function, but the ability to return to sport varied widely, with 20% to 94% of patients returning to their sport after surgical or nonoperative management. On average, 55% of athletes returned to full participation in prior sports, but overhead athletes had a lower average return of 45%. Additional work is needed to define the criteria for diagnosing and guiding clinical decision making to optimize outcomes and return to play.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Injuries to the Biceps and Superior Labral Complex in Overhead Athletes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the diagnostic and treatment challenges presented by injuries to the biceps and superior labral complex.

RECENT FINDINGS

A focused patient history, numerous physical examination maneuvers, and appropriate advanced imaging studies must be utilized to reach an accurate diagnosis. Nonoperative management, even in overhead athletes, has demonstrated relatively good outcomes, while operative outcomes have yielded mixed results. The surgeon must take into account a number of variables when choosing the appropriate surgical procedure: labral repair versus biceps tenodesis. Rehabilitation, either as nonoperative management or as a postoperative protocol, should focus on restoring glenohumeral and scapulothoracic strength, endurance, and full, pain-free range of motion, while correcting any deficiencies in balance or rhythm throughout the overhead motion. Despite the operative treatment challenges that SLAP tears present, with new techniques and proper patient selection, overhead athletes with injuries to the biceps and superior labrum complex can return to sport at a high level.

Sham surgery versus labral repair or biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a three-armed randomised clinical trial

Background

Labral repair and biceps tenodesis are routine operations for superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their efficacy is lacking. We evaluated the effect of labral repair, biceps tenodesis and sham surgery on SLAP lesions.

Methods

A double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted with 118 surgical candidates (mean age 40 years), with patient history, clinical symptoms and MRI arthrography indicating an isolated type II SLAP lesion. Patients were randomly assigned to either labral repair (n=40), biceps tenodesis (n=39) or sham surgery (n=39) if arthroscopy revealed an isolated SLAP II lesion. Primary outcomes at 6 and 24 months were clinical Rowe score ranging from 0 to 100 (best possible) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ranging from 0 (best possible) to 2100. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Instability Shoulder Score, change in main symptoms, EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction and complications.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences at any follow-up in any outcome. Between-group differences in Rowe scores at 2 years were: biceps tenodesis versus labral repair: 1.0 (95% CI −5.4 to 7.4), p=0.76; biceps tenodesis versus sham surgery: 1.6 (95% CI −5.0 to 8.1), p=0.64; and labral repair versus sham surgery: 0.6 (95% CI −5.9 to 7.0), p=0.86. Similar results—no differences between groups—were found for WOSI scores. Postoperative stiffness occurred in five patients after labral repair and in four patients after tenodesis.

Conclusion

Neither labral repair nor biceps tenodesis had any significant clinical benefit over sham surgery for patients with SLAP II lesions in the population studied.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00586742

Clinical outcome of arthroscopic SLAP repair: conventional vertical knot versus knotless horizontal mattress sutures

PURPOSE

Arthroscopic repair of type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears yields variable results. In this study, the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic knotless horizontal mattress repair were compared to those of conventional vertical knot repair.

METHODS

Forty-six patients treated arthroscopically for isolated SLAP lesions were assessed. Forty-one of those patients underwent follow-up evaluations for a minimum of 2 years: 21 received vertical knot (group 1), while 20 received horizontal mattress (group 2). In group 1, an anchor was inserted at the superior glenoid. After relaying the sutures, knotting over the labral tissue was performed. In group 2, two strands were passed through the labrum and fixed into the glenoid with a bioabsorbable knotless anchor. Functional scores were evaluated preoperatively and at the final follow-up assessment. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and range of motion (ROM) were assessed preoperatively, 2 months postoperatively and at the last follow-up visit.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in functional scores between groups (n.s.). However, external rotation at the side, internal rotation at abduction and total ROM were better in group 2 at the last follow-up visit. At 2 months postoperatively, the VAS for pain and ROM of internal rotation at abduction were better in group 2.

CONCLUSION

At the final assessment, there were no significant differences in functional scores between the two groups. However, external rotation at the side, internal rotation at abduction and total ROM were better in group 2.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

Demographic trends in arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis across the United States

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in procedures and to report on demographic data of patients undergoing arthroscopic vs. open biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a commercially available database (PearlDiver) was conducted to identify cases of arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis performed between 2007 and 2011 with concurrent diagnoses of commonly associated shoulder disorders. Each record provided the patient's age, gender, and region within the United States, and statistical significance was determined with respect to each of these demographics.

RESULTS

There were 9011 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis and 11,678 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis between 2007 and 2011. The number of biceps tenodesis cases increased from 2007 to 2011 (2047 to 5832; P = .015). Both arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis procedures were performed most commonly in the 30- to 59-year-old age group (76.3% and 76.1%; P < .00001). Men underwent arthroscopic or open biceps tenodesis more commonly than women did (66.1% and 71.9%; P < .00001). Rates of both open and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis varied significantly among the Midwest, South, Northeast, and West regions (P = .009; P = .007); 49.8% of arthroscopic and 44.6% of open biceps tenodesis cases were associated with rotator cuff tears, whereas 14.4% of arthroscopic and 16.2% of open cases were associated with biceps tendon disorders.

CONCLUSION

Both arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis cases increased annually from 2007 to 2011. The majority of biceps tenodesis cases were performed in men aged 30 to 59 years, and the South had the highest overall number of cases. Further studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of these procedures with and without concomitant pathologic processes.

Surgical treatment of isolated type II superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions: repair versus biceps tenodesis

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear which patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions benefit from either superior labral repair or biceps tenodesis. This study evaluates the indications and outcomes of patients with isolated type II SLAP lesions who have undergone either procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who had surgery for an isolated type II SLAP lesion between 2008 and 2011. There were 25 patients: 15 underwent biceps tenodesis, with a mean follow-up of 31 months (range, 26-43 months), and 10 underwent SLAP repair, with a mean follow-up of 35 months (range, 25-52 months). The mean age was 47 years (range, 30-59 years) in the tenodesis group and 31 years (range, 21-43 years) in the repair group.

RESULTS

At latest follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in subjective shoulder value and pain score. No difference was observed in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (93.0 vs 93.5, P = .45), patient satisfaction (93% vs 90%, P = .45), or return to preinjury sporting level (73% vs 60%, P = .66). Analysis of the indications for treatment showed that in the large majority, tenodesis was performed in older patients (>35 years) and patients who showed degenerative or frayed labrums whereas SLAP repairs were performed in younger and more active patients with healthy-appearing labral tissue. There was only 1 failure in the tenodesis group, and in the SLAP repair group, there were 2 cases of postoperative stiffness; all were treated nonoperatively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we show that both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair can provide good to excellent results if performed in appropriately selected patients with isolated type II SLAP lesions.

Superior labral anterior posterior lesions of the shoulder

Superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesion is of fairly recent description and its understanding is rapidly evolving. Its incidence and need for surgical treatment has increased exponentially in line with the increase in shoulder arthroscopies. It is of particular importance in the elite over head athlete and the young. A range of arthroscopic techniques and devices have been described with good functional results. The ability to return to pre injury level of sports remains a concern.

Disorders of the proximal and distal aspects of the biceps muscle

PROXIMAL ASPECT OF BICEPS: Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps may offer improved cosmesis, improved strength, and diminished activity-related pain compared with tenotomy, although comparative studies have shown similar outcomes in some patient populations. DISTAL ASPECT OF BICEPS: Operative treatment of both partial and complete distal biceps ruptures results in better outcomes compared with nonoperative care, although the optimal technique and fixation are yet to be determined. Nonoperative management is an acceptable treatment for patients willing to accept some loss of forearm supination and elbow flexion strength as well as changes in endurance and cosmesis.

Does age or gender of the patient influence the outcome of type II superior labrum anterior and posterior repair?

AIMS

To assess whether patients above 50 years of age, particularly female, would benefit from repair of their SLAP tears.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Review of patients' records followed by telephone interview at a minimum of two years after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-two consecutive patients who had their SLAP repaired were retrospective reviewed by an independent examiner. Follow up was by telephone interview with pain and functional results measured according to the Oxford Shoulder Questionnaire. The patients were asked whether they would undergo the same operation if they had a similar injury.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

OKS - One way ANOVA, followed by Tukey HSD multiple comparisons were used to assess the Oxford Shoulder score. Kruskal-Wallis Test was used to assess the final VAS Pain Score. Student's T tests for Oxford scores before and after surgery.

RESULTS

Between 2007-2008, 38 male patients and 34 female patients with an average age of 53 (19-75) years had their SLAP repair. Good to excellent results in Oxford shoulder scores were reported in 94%. 68 0f 72 patients would undergo the same if they had a similar injury. No statistical correlation was found between the patient's age, gender and outcome scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the patients' gender nor their age above 50 affected the outcome after surgery.

The influence of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair on restoring baseline glenohumeral translation and increased biceps loading after simulated SLAP tear and the effectiveness of SLAP repair after long head of biceps tenotomy

HYPOTHESIS

Biomechanical studies have shown increased glenohumeral translation and loading of the long head biceps (LHB) tendon after superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. This may explain some of the typical clinical findings, including the prevalence of humeral chondral lesions, after SLAP lesions. The first hypothesis was that SLAP repair could restore the original glenohumeral translation and reduce the increased LHB load after SLAP lesions. The second hypothesis was that SLAP repair after LHB tenotomy could significantly reduce the increased glenohumeral translation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Biomechanical testing was performed on 21 fresh frozen human cadaveric shoulders with an intact shoulder girdle using a sensor-guided industrial robot to apply 20 N of compression in the joint and 50 N translational force at 0°, 30°, and 60° of abduction. LHB loading was measured by a load-cell with 5 N and 25 N preload. Type IIC SLAP lesions were created arthroscopically, and a standardized SLAP repair was done combined with or without LHB tenotomy.

RESULTS

No significant difference of glenohumeral translation and increased LHB load in SLAP repair compared with the intact shoulder was observed under 5 N and 25 LHB preload, except for anterior translation under 25 N LHB preload. After LHB tenotomy after SLAP lesions, no significant difference of translation was observed with or without SLAP repair.

CONCLUSIONS

SLAP repair without associated LHB tenotomy helps normalize glenohumeral translation and LHB loading. The stabilizing effect of the SLAP complex is dependent on the LHB. After biceps tenotomy, SLAP repair does not affect glenohumeral translation.

Superior labrum anterior and posterior lesions of the shoulder: incidence rates, complications, and outcomes as reported by American Board of Orthopedic Surgery. Part II candidates

BACKGROUND

Tears of the superior labrum (superior labrum anterior and posterior [SLAP] lesions) of the shoulder are uncommon injuries; however, the incidence of surgical correction seems to be increasing.

PURPOSE

To report the findings of a review of a proprietary descriptive database that catalogs cases for the purpose of board certification on the demographics of SLAP lesion repair. It is the authors' impression that the percentage of cases of SLAP lesion repairs reported by young orthopaedic surgeons is high and that complications associated with this are not insignificant.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We searched the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) part II database to evaluate changes in treatment over time and to identify available outcomes and associated complications of arthroscopic repair of SLAP lesions. The database was searched for all SLAP lesions (ICD-9 code 840.7) and SLAP repairs (CPT code 29807) for the years 2003 through 2008. Utilization was analyzed by geographic region and was also obtained based on applicant subspecialty declaration.

RESULTS

There were 4975 SLAP repairs, representing 9.4% of all applicants' shoulder cases. Mean follow-up was 8.9 weeks because of the time-limited case collection period. There were 78.4% who were men, and 21.6% of patients were women. The percentage of shoulder cases that were SLAP repairs increased over the study period from 9.4% to 10.1% by 2008 (P = .0163). Mean age of male patients was 36.4 ± 13.0 years, with a maximum of 85 years. Mean age of female patients was 40.9 ± 14.0 years, with a maximum of 88 years. Pain was reported as absent in only 26.3% of patients at follow-up and function as normal in only 13.1%. There were 40.1% of applicants who self-reported their patients to have an excellent result. The self-reported complication rate was 4.4%. Declared sports medicine specialists had a higher percentage of SLAP repairs than did general orthopaedic surgeons: 12.4% versus 9.2%.

CONCLUSION

The percentage of shoulder cases that are SLAP repairs reported by the candidates is 3 times the published incidence supported by the current literature. The large number of repairs in middle-aged and elderly patients is concerning. Focusing on educating young orthopaedic surgeons to appropriately recognize and treat symptomatic SLAP lesions may bring the rate of SLAP repairs down.