Rates of Subsequent Shoulder Surgery Within Three Years for Patients Undergoing SLAP Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis

SLAP repair and bicep tenodesis: a comparison of utilization and revision rates for SLAP tears

Hypothesis

The management of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears typically consists of either repair or biceps tenodesis (BT). While repair is more frequently recommended in younger patients, patients older than 40 years are often treated with BT. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there has been a change in utilization of these procedures over the past decade with respect to patient age as well as compare reoperation rates between the two procedures.

Methods

The Pearldiver database was queried to identify BT and SLAP repairs indicated for SLAP tears performed from 2010 to 2019. The primary outcome was utilization rate, stratified by age. A secondary outcome was 2-year shoulder reoperation rates. Trends were reported in terms of compounded annual growth rate. Outcome analysis was conducted using univariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

From 2010 to 2019, SLAP repair was the most common procedure performed for SLAP tears. Regardless of age, BT performed for SLAP tear had a significantly increased utilization rate; whereas, SLAP repair had a significantly decreased utilization rate. SLAP repair was more commonly performed in younger patients compared to BT. Following multivariable analysis, patients who underwent SLAP repair had significantly higher odds (odds ratio (OR): 1.453; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-1.68; P < .001) of requiring an arthroscopic reoperation within 2 years when compared to those who underwent BT with no significant difference with respect to 2-year open reoperation.

Conclusion

Although SLAP repair is still more commonly used to treat SLAP tears than BT, especially for younger patients, the utilization of SLAP repair is decreasing while BT is increasing. The increased utilization of BT may be associated with lower rates of shoulder reoperation for problematic SLAP tears.

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.

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

PURPOSE

To use a contemporary cross-sectional data set to evaluate trends in surgical treatment for superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tears and compare surgical outcomes with respect to 2-year revision surgery rates following index SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with a SLAP tear between 2010 and 2017 were queried using the Mariner PearlDiver database and stratified by demographic variables and surgical treatment with arthroscopic SLAP repair or arthroscopic/open BT. From 2015 to 2017, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) codes were used to track ipsilateral subsequent reoperation within 2-years of index surgery.

RESULTS

Between 2010 to 2017, 16.6% of 377,463 patients diagnosed with a SLAP tear underwent surgery (62.3% SLAP repair vs 37.7% BT). 52.4% of BT procedures were arthroscopic (47.6% open). The frequency of SLAP repairs decreased from 74.0% to 46.2% (61%), while the frequency of BTs increased from 26.0% to 53.8% (202%) during the study period. Patients under age 50 were more likely to undergo SLAP repair, and those undergoing BT were more likely to be over 50 with higher CCI and comorbidity risk. 6.3% of 16,186 patients identified with ICD-10 coding required reoperation within 2-years postoperatively. SLAP repair demonstrated a higher revision rate (6.8%; 95% CI, 6.3-7.4%) than BT (5.7%; 95% CI, 5.2-6.2%; P =.0002), (open 5.8% vs arthroscopic BT 5.5%). Arthroscopic debridement, including biceps tenotomy, revision SLAP repair, and revision BT were the most common subsequent procedures. Patients aged 40 to 49 had the highest rate of revision surgery (7.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment trend for SLAP tears is changing, with SLAP repair becoming significantly less utilized and BT now becoming the preferred option, especially in patients over 50. Arthroscopic and open BT demonstrated slightly lower risk for reoperation than SLAP repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, cross-sectional study.