Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates Lower Reoperation Rates Compared to SLAP Repair for Treatment of SLAP Tears in a Large Cross-Sectional Population

Repair of Isolated Subscapularis Tears With Concurrent Biceps Tenodesis Using a Single Anchor Results in Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with isolated subscapularis tear repair and biceps tenodesis using a single anchor.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with subscapularis tear and who underwent arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between February 2017 and January 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent repair of isolated subscapularis tear along with tenodesis for long head of the biceps tendon pathologies such as SLAP lesion, instability, partial tear, or tenosynovitis, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Assessment included active and passive range of motion, single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), visual analog scale (VAS), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and specific subscapularis and biceps tests. Improvements were analyzed using minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were included. The mean age was 48.5 ± 7 years, and the follow-up period was 43.1 ± 12.7 months. Significant improvements were observed at the final follow-up in active forward flexion, active abduction, active internal rotation, as well as VAS, SANE, and CMS (P < .001). The MCID analysis showed that 100% of patients met the MCID for CMS, 90% for SANE, and 100% for VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of an isolated subscapularis tear associated with long head of the biceps tendon pathologies, favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved by performing both tear repair and biceps tenodesis with a double-loaded single anchor. Most patients (>90%) achieved the MCID for the CMS, SANE, and VAS, indicating significant clinical improvement and satisfactory patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair is associated with increased rate of subsequent rotator cuff diagnoses and revision surgery: a propensity-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears remains controversial. Current management utilizes 2 well-established procedures: biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair. This study evaluates the complications associated with arthroscopic SLAP repair vs. an open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis to further elucidate optimal surgical management.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the TriNetX database was utilized to evaluate patients who underwent repair of SLAP lesions (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code: S43.43) from May 15, 2003, to May 15, 2023. Three patient cohorts were evaluated: those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code: 29807), those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT code: 29828), and those who underwent open tenodesis of the biceps (CPT code: 23430). Cohorts were propensity matched for type 2 diabetes, nicotine dependence, alcohol-related disorders, body mass index, and demographic factors such as age at event, ethnicity, race, and sex. The outcomes evaluated were disruption of surgical wound, deep vein thrombosis, mononeuropathy of upper limb, shoulder contusion, humeral fracture, sepsis, deceased, acute postoperative pain, revision, shoulder stiffness, and rotator cuff strain. All outcomes were evaluated within 1 year postprocedure.

RESULTS

A total of 11,081 arthroscopic SLAP repairs, 9960 arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, and 9420 open biceps tenodesis were matched. Compared with patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair were 1.8 times more likely to undergo revision (2.9% vs. 1.6%, P < .0001). Compared with those who underwent open biceps tenodesis, patients who had SLAP repair performed were 1.4 times more likely to undergo revision (3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = .013) and 1.6 times more likely to have a subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P = .0002). Compared with patients who underwent SLAP repair, those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.3 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (5.2% vs. 4.0%, P = .011). Similarly, open biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.8 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (6.9% vs. 3.8%, P < .0001) and 1.3 times more shoulder stiffness (11.8% vs. 9.0%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In the last 20 years, patients who underwent SLAP repair were associated with higher risk of revision surgery and subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis. Conversely, patients who underwent biceps tenodesis were associated with higher rates of acute postoperative pain and shoulder stiffness.

Revision Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Demonstrates a High Patient Satisfaction and Good Functional Outcomes

Purpose

To clinically evaluate a subset of patients who underwent a revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis for a clinically failed proximal biceps tenodesis.

Methods

This is a retrospective case series of patients with at least 2-year follow-up who had undergone a revision biceps tenodesis after clinical failure of a proximal biceps tenodesis between January 2008 and February 2020 by a single surgeon. Patients who underwent concomitant procedures, such as revision cuff repair, were excluded. Patients with a minimum of 2 years duration status postrevision subpectoral tenodesis were contacted for informed consent and outcome data, which included Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale for pain, and subjective reporting of arm weakness and satisfaction.

Results

Fourteen patients were initially identified as meeting inclusion criteria with a minimum 2-year follow-up achieved for 11 of 14 patients (78.5% follow-up). The mean follow-up time was 8.1 years (range, 2.7-14.8 years). After the primary biceps tenodesis, a mean of 8.0 ± 9.6 months passed before the revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis was performed. The average postoperative active forward elevation and adducted external rotation were 159 ± 7° and 47 ± 17°, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (range) follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 79 ± 23 (30-100), Simple Shoulder Test was 11 ± 2 (7-12), and visual analog scale for pain was 2.6 ± 2.8 (0-9). All 11 patients reported being satisfied with their operation and would elect to have the operation again.

Conclusions

Revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a viable procedure for addressing patients with persistent pain following initial proximal biceps tenodesis. Although some persistent pain is common, revision subpectoral biceps tenodesis demonstrates a high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Biceps Tenodesis Has Greater Expected Value Than Repair for Isolated Type II SLAP Tears: A Meta-analysis and Expected-Value Decision Analysis

PURPOSE

To use an expected-value decision analysis to determine the optimal treatment decision between repair and biceps tenodesis (BT) for an isolated type II SLAP injury.

METHODS

An expected-value decision analysis with sensitivity analysis was performed to systematically quantify the clinical decision. To determine outcome probabilities, a decision tree was constructed (repair vs BT) and a meta-analysis was conducted. To determine outcome utilities, we evaluated 70 patients with a chief complaint of shoulder pain regarding age, sex, Shoulder Activity Level, and visual analog scale score in terms of potential outcome preferences. Statistical fold-back analysis was performed to determine the optimal treatment. One-way sensitivity analysis determined the effect of changing the reinjury rate on the expected value of BT.

RESULTS

The overall expected value was 8.66 for BT versus 7.19 for SLAP repair. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that BT was the superior choice if reinjury rates were expected to be lower than 28%. Meta-analysis of 23 studies and 908 patients revealed that the probability of a "well" outcome was significantly greater for BT (87.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.9%-94.6%; I² = 0.0%) than for SLAP repair (62.9%; 95% CI, 55.9%-69.3%; I² = 65.9%; P = .0023). The rate of reinjury was 1.5% for BT (95% CI, 0.05%-33.8%; I² = 0.0%) and 6.4% for repair (95% CI, 4.2%-9.6%; I² = 24%), which was not statistically significantly different (P = .411). A total of 50 participants (mean age, 25.4 years [standard deviation, 8.9 years]; 76% male patients; 50% overhead athletes) met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six percent of participants had a high Shoulder Activity Level score.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision analysis showed that BT is preferred over repair for an isolated type II SLAP tear based on greater expected value of BT versus repair. Meta-analysis showed more frequent favorable outcomes with BT. Surgeons can use this information to tailor discussions with patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, meta-analysis of Level I-IV studies.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Indications for Shoulder SLAP Lesion Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis Depend on Patient Age, Tear Type and Location, and Quality of Tissue

Whether to repair a shoulder SLAP lesion or perform a biceps tenodesis depends on a multitude of factors: patient age, activity or work level, type of SLAP tear, location of SLAP tear, and quality of labral tissue. Determining which procedure to perform does not have such a simple, one-size-fits-all solution. For patients younger than 40 years, repair of type 2 SLAP tears that do not directly affect the biceps anchor (i.e., those tears from the 12:30 clock-face position to the 2-o'clock position or from the 10-o'clock position to the 11:30 clock-face position) is generally successful. For tears at the biceps anchor in patients younger than 40 years, repair the SLAP tear but perform tenodesis of the biceps. For type 3 SLAP tears, debride the bucket-handle component and spare the biceps because it usually is not involved. For type 4 tears, perform tenodesis. In patients older than 40 years, type 2 and type 4 SLAP tears are predominantly treated with biceps tenodesis with debridement of the SLAP tear, if indicated. SLAP repair is rarely indicated in patients older than 40 years because the tissue is usually degenerative and frayed.