Arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions: Clinical and anatomic follow-up

The Impact of Lateral Decubitus vs. Beach Chair Positioning on the Clinical Outcome of the Patients with Isolated SLAP Type II Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A superior labrum from anterior to posterior (SLAP) repairs can be performed in either beach chair (BC) or lateral decubitus (LD). The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of surgical repair of type II SLAP injuries between the BC vs. LD positions. We hypothesized no statistically significant differences in the functional, pain, and motion outcomes between the BC vs. LD positions after type II SLAP repair.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane to identify studies reporting outcomes after type II SLAP repair. Outcome measures consisted of pain using the visual analog score (VAS), range of motion (ROM), and functional scores, including the University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder (UCLA) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant score. The outcomes were pooled and analyzed for eligibility and stratified into two subgroups for a random-effects model meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 8,016 identified studies through a database search, 13 papers (378 patients) were eligible for statistical analysis in the BC and 10 articles (473 patients) were included in the LD group. The mean follow-up for BC and LD was 35 and 44 months, respectively. The SLAP repair in both positions demonstrated improvements in postoperative clinical outcomes and ROM. Comparing the two positions, the LD group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in VAS which contributed to better functional outcomes, while the BC group showed a significantly greater improvement in abduction. No other differences were identified including ASES, UCLA, and Constant score as well as remaining ROM.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis, both the BC and LD positions provide patients better outcomes following operative repair of type II SLAPs. While LD represented a better improvement in functional outcome measures, the BC position demonstrated better abduction with no other significant differences between both positions. An individualized approach to position selection concerning the patient's complaint (pain vs. motion) as well as the surgeon's discretion is recommended.

Adolescent Posterior-Superior Glenoid Labral Pathology: Does Involvement of the Biceps Anchor Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND

Adolescent athletes are at risk of sustaining an injury to the posterior and superior labrum of the glenoid. Limited information is available regarding the outcomes of surgical intervention in this specific age cohort.

PURPOSE

To compare those patients with pure posterior pathology and those with posterior labral tears that involve the biceps anchor (superior labrum anterior-posterior [SLAP] tears) to determine risks for failure in the surgical management.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on all patients under the age of 19 years over an 8-year period to identify those treated for superior and posterior labral pathology, followed by chart review, radiographic review, and arthroscopic findings. Patient characteristics and other variables were recorded, including cause (traumatic vs atraumatic), activity/sports (overhead vs nonoverhead), involvement of the biceps anchor-crossing the 12-o'clock position (posterior vs SLAP), associated pathologies, outcome scores (Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation [SANE] and Pediatric/Adolescent Shoulder Survey [PASS] scores), and complications.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients (30 boys, 18 girls) with a mean age at surgery of 16.5 years (range, 13.5-19 years) were identified who met criteria, with a mean follow-up of 4.1 years (range, 1.3-6.9 years). Nineteen patients had SLAP tears and 29 patients had posterior tears. All but 2 regularly participated in sports at the time of their injury; of the athletes, 26 (56.5%) played an overhead sport and 20 (43.5%) played a nonoverhead sport. The cause of the injury was traumatic in 25 cases (52.1%) and atraumatic in 23 cases (47.9%). Outcome scores were not significantly different between cause or type of sports played; SANE scores were not significantly different by tear type (mean SLAP score, 88.4 compared with mean posterior score, 80.9; P = .124); but the mean PASS score in the SLAP group was 88.7, compared with 76.2 in the posterior group (P = .005) at final assessment. Only 1 SLAP patient had failed management (5.3%) compared with 5 patients in the posterior-only cohort (17.2%).

CONCLUSION

Posterior SLAP tears have better outcomes and lower failure rates than posterior-only tears in the adolescent population. Posterior-superior labral tears can occur in all sports types with multiple causes, but the only factor that appears to play a role in ultimate outcome is whether the tear crosses under the biceps anchor to the anterior side.

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.

Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Repair: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions often result in significant sporting limitations for athletes. Return to sport is a significant outcome that often needs to be considered by athletes undergoing the procedure.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate return to sport among individuals undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair.

DATA SOURCES

Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane) were searched from database inception through January 29, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language articles reporting on return-to-activity rates after arthroscopic SLAP repairs were included.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data including patient demographics, surgical procedure, and return to activity were extracted. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

Of 1938 screened abstracts, 22 articles involving a total of 944 patients undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair met inclusion criteria. Of the total included patients, 270 were identified as overhead athletes, with 146 pitchers. Across all patients, 69.6% (657/944 patients) of individuals undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair returned to sport. There was a 69.0% (562/815 patients) return to previous level of play, with a mean time to return to sport of 8.9 ± 2.4 months (range, 6.0-11.7 months). The return-to-sport rate for pitchers compared with the return-to-activity rate for nonpitchers, encompassing return to work and return to sport, was 57.5% (84/146 patients) and 87.1% (572/657 patients), respectively, after arthroscopic SLAP repair.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic SLAP repair is associated with a fair return to sport, with 69.6% of individuals undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair returning to sport. SLAP repair in pitchers has significantly decreased return to sport in comparison with nonpitching athletes. Athletes on average return to sport within 9 months postoperatively.

Treatment for Symptomatic SLAP Tears in Middle-Aged Patients Comparing Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, and Nonoperative Approaches: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear.

METHODS

A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness.

RESULTS

Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, economic decision analysis.

SLAP lesions: a treatment algorithm

Tears of the superior labrum involving the biceps anchor are a common entity, especially in athletes, and may highly impair shoulder function. If conservative treatment fails, successful arthroscopic repair of symptomatic SLAP lesions has been described in the literature particularly for young athletes. However, the results in throwing athletes are less successful with a significant amount of patients who will not regain their pre-injury level of performance. The clinical results of SLAP repairs in middle-aged and older patients are mixed, with worse results and higher revision rates as compared to younger patients. In this population, tenotomy or tenodesis of the biceps tendon is a viable alternative to SLAP repairs in order to improve clinical outcomes. The present article introduces a treatment algorithm for SLAP lesions based upon the recent literature as well as the authors' clinical experience. The type of lesion, age of patient, concomitant lesions, and functional requirements, as well as sport activity level of the patient, need to be considered. Moreover, normal variations and degenerative changes in the SLAP complex have to be distinguished from "true" SLAP lesions in order to improve results and avoid overtreatment. The suggestion for a treatment algorithm includes: type I: conservative treatment or arthroscopic debridement, type II: SLAP repair or biceps tenotomy/tenodesis, type III: resection of the instable bucket-handle tear, type IV: SLAP repair (biceps tenotomy/tenodesis if >50 % of biceps tendon is affected), type V: Bankart repair and SLAP repair, type VI: resection of the flap and SLAP repair, and type VII: refixation of the anterosuperior labrum and SLAP repair.