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

Principles of the superior labrum and biceps complex: an expert consensus from the NEER Circle

BACKGROUND

The superior labrum and biceps complex is commonly implicated in shoulder pain and there remains discordance regarding the surgical management of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this study was to establish an expert consensus regarding the management of superior labrum and biceps complex pathology.

METHODS

The NEER Circle is an organization of shoulder experts recognized for their service to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society. Consensus among 92 identified experts was sought with a series of surveys pertaining to the management of superior labrum and biceps complex (SBC) pathology. The initial survey featured questions crafted to determine the experience of the panel in treating SBC pathology. The second survey was designed to elicit opinions concerning the diagnosis and treatment of SBC pathology. The third survey aimed to establish consensus across 48 scenarios, tasking panelists with categorizing 4 surgical modalities as either preferred, acceptable, or not acceptable. The available options included débridement, SLAP repair, biceps treatment, or a combined repair and biceps treatment. In the final survey, the panelists were tasked with diagnosing SBC pathologies by assessing arthroscopic footage and evaluating treatment options within 45 scenarios. A minimum of 80% agreement was required to attain consensus, designating a treatment as either preferred or unacceptable.

RESULTS

Response rates ranged from 52.2% to 58.7%. Discordance exists regarding aspects of the physical examination, patient history, imaging, nonoperative management, and the surgical approach in SBC injuries. Of the 78 clinical scenarios, 26 reached consensus agreement. Treating the biceps was the favored approach in older, more sedentary patients with evidence of biceps tendinopathy. Performing a SLAP repair was favored in scenarios depicting younger, more active patients with signs of an unstable biceps anchor or mechanical symptoms. A SLAP repair was typically contraindicated in the setting of an older patient, concomitant rotator cuff tear, and/or a prior failed SLAP repair. The management of overhead throwing athletes, particularly those that are professionals, remained controversial, although SLAP repair is generally favored in younger pitchers.

CONCLUSION

The optimal management of superior labrum and biceps complex pathology requires a systematic approach based on the individual's age, occupational demands, and functional requirements. Age was the predominant factor influencing surgical decision making. SLAP repairs are generally favored in younger, active patients, whereas treating the biceps is preferred in lower-demand patients aged >30 years. Little consensus was observed regarding the management of competitive athletes.

Comparable and Improved Clinical Outcomes, Pain Relief, Return to Sport, and Low Popeye Deformity Rates in Inlay Versus Onlay Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To directly compare clinical outcomes, including failure rates, incidence of Popeye deformity, and return to sport (RTS)/activity between inlay and onlay fixation techniques specifically for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Inclusion criteria consisted of Level I to IV studies in English, reporting clinical outcomes for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with at least a 2-year follow-up. Data on patient-reported outcome measures, RTS, Popeye deformity, and failure rates were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity, and clinical outcomes between fixation techniques were compared using qualitative analysis and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total of 498 patients (347 in the inlay group, 151 in the onlay group) were included. Postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores ranged from 78.6 to 95.8, visual analog scale pain scores from 0.25 to 2.6, and Constant-Murley scores from 26.7 to 91.8, with no differences noted between inlay and onlay techniques across these measures on qualitative assessment. RTS rates were similarly comparable, ranging from 62% to 93% across all studies. The incidence of Popeye deformity was low in both groups, ranging from 0% to 7.7% for inlay fixation and from 0% to 6.7% for onlay fixation, with no qualitative differences observed. Heterogeneity in outcomes was attributed to variations in study design and patient populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Both inlay and onlay fixation for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis showed comparable clinical outcomes, similar pain relief, and low rates of Popeye deformity. RTS rates were consistently high across both techniques. The choice of fixation method did not significantly impact the overall results, suggesting that either technique can be used effectively based on surgeon and patient preferences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Biceps Tenodesis and SLAP Repair Show Similar Outcomes in Overhead Throwing Athletes With Baseball Pitchers Exhibiting Worse Rates of Return to Sport: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, return-to-play (RTP) outcomes, and incidence of postoperative complications in overhead throwing athletes with SLAP lesions undergoing SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis (BT) with minimum 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

Using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a literature search was conducted on July 9, 2024, by querying PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of Level I to IV human clinical studies reporting RTP rate, complications, and/or failure rates following SLAP repair versus BT for SLAP lesions in overhead throwing athletes with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Study quality was determined using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies from 2005 to 2023, reporting on 547 patients with a mean age ranging from 17.4 to 36.0 years and a mean follow-up ranging from 2.7 to 7.2 years, met inclusion criteria. Twelve studies (n = 459 athletes) reported outcomes following SLAP repair and 5 (n = 88 athletes) following BT. A total of 15 studies reported on baseball players, 8 on softball players, and 2 on handball players. There were 220 pitchers who underwent SLAP repair compared to 34 pitchers who underwent BT. RTP rates for all throwers ranged from 37.5% to 94.7% following SLAP repair and 35.3% to 93.1% following BT. The RTP rate for pitchers and position players following SLAP repair ranged from 40% to 80% and 76.3% to 91.3%, respectively, compared to 16.7% and 80%, respectively, following BT. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 21.8% following SLAP repair compared to 0% following BT. Failure rates and revisions ranged from 7.5% to 12.5% for SLAP repair versus 0% for BT.

CONCLUSIONS

In overhead throwing athletes with SLAP tears, an analysis of 547 patients from 16 studies shows variable RTP rates following SLAP repair and BT, with baseball pitchers having lower RTP rates compared to position players for both procedures. Outcomes for both SLAP repair and BT exhibit massive variability when treating SLAP tears in overhead throwers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and return to sport between unicortical versus bicortical button fixation techniques for subpectoral biceps tenodesis

PURPOSE

There is limited clinical outcome data comparing fixation methods for tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), particularly button fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing LHBT with bicortical versus unicortical button technique. The authors hypothesized these fixation methods would be similar for all outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LHBT using unicortical or bicortical button fixation with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. A sports activity survey was collected to assess baseline sport participation and ability to return to pre-injury activities. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney-U test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed to determine predictors of RTS and time to RTS.

RESULTS

Sixty-four subjects (19 unicortical and 45 bicortical button fixation) were included (average follow-up 3.5 (range: 2.0-7.8) years). There were no significant differences found between button groups for VAS pain score (1.5 vs. 1.2; p = 0.876), VAS pain during sport score (1.6 vs. 1.1, p = 0.398), and ASES score (66 vs. 71; p = 0.294). There were no significant differences in rate of RTS (75.0 vs. 77.4%; p = 0.885) or average time to return to sport (11.7 ± 7.3 vs. 7.0 ± 4.0 months; p = 0.081) between groups.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, pain, or return to sport between patients who underwent LHBT with unicortical or bicortical button fixation.

Establishing Clinical Significance for Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Repair of Type II SLAP Lesions

Background

Type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions may be treated with either arthroscopic repair or biceps tenodesis. There are no previous reports of measures of clinically significant improvement after arthroscopic repair of SLAP lesions.

Purpose

To establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for type II SLAP lesions.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A total of 69 arthroscopic repair procedures for isolated type II SLAP lesions were performed in a military population. The mean age was 28.1 ± 4.7 years, 97.1% were male, and the mean follow-up was 99.5 ± 19.7 months. The MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated for each patient-reported outcome measure, consisting of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, using anchor- and distribution-based models. Factors associated with achieving a clinically relevant improvement were also determined.

Results

The MCID, PASS, and SCB for each measure were as follows: 7.7, 70, and 34 for the ASES score, respectively; 10.4, 80, and 45 for the SANE, respectively; and 1.0, 4, and 6 for the VAS pain, respectively. At least 85% of patients achieved the MCID for each measure; however, PASS rates were lower, with 50.7% for the SANE and 69.6% for both the ASES score and VAS pain. The ASES score had the highest percentage of patients achieving the SCB at 44.9%, followed by the SANE (26.1%) and VAS pain (10.1%). Greater forward flexion at final follow-up was associated with achieving the MCID and PASS for both the ASES score and SANE. Internal rotation stiffness at final follow-up was negatively associated with achieving the PASS for the VAS pain. Combat arms military occupational specialty was associated with a lesser likelihood of achieving the SCB for the ASES score.

Conclusion

Clinical metrics of improvement were defined for the ASES score, SANE, and VAS pain using the MCID, PASS, and SCB for patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions. Better final range of motion was positively associated with achieving improvement, while high-intensity military duty was negatively associated.

Return to Sports and Clinical Results After All-Arthroscopic Biceps Tenodesis Using a 2.7-mm Knotless PEEK Suture Anchor

Background

The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-known source of pain in the shoulder, especially in active patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the outcomes and return-to-sports rate after all-arthroscopic suprapectoral tenodesis of the LHBT using a small knotless anchor.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 27 patients-who underwent all-arthroscopic tenodesis of the LHBT using a 2.7-mm knotless polyether ether ketone anchor-were evaluated. Sports activities, the return-to-sports rate, and other sports-related parameters (eg, pain during sports, level of sports) were examined. Sports-related data, the Constant score with isometric force (at 90° of abduction in the scapular plane), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for satisfaction, range of motion, and the presence of a Popeye deformity were assessed at a mean follow-up of 15.3 ± 8.7 months. The data were initially analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

The postoperative ASES, Constant, and SST scores were 81.61, 85.74 and 8.85, respectively. Of the 27 patients, 4 patients (14.8%) showed a Popeye deformity. Preoperatively, 25 patients (92.6%) participated regularly in some type of sports activity. All 25 patients (100.0%) were able to return to sports activities after surgery. 24 (96.0%) returned to the same level preoperatively, with 88.0% (22/25) within 6 months. Patient satisfaction with the outcome was high (VAS score: 2.15 ± 2.78). Neither bicipital groove pain nor cramping was reported. There were no signs of osteolytic bone around the anchor or a fracture of the humeral bone.

Conclusion

Our clinical results after using a 2.7-mm knotless anchor for LHBT tenodesis as well as the return-to-sports rate were satisfying. Using an anchor this size can lower the risk of cortical bone damage and therefore the risk of fractures of the humeral head while still enabling patients to perform at a high level.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair for Posterior Glenohumeral Instability

BACKGROUND

Posterior glenohumeral instability is an increasingly recognized cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction among young, active populations. Outcomes after posterior stabilization procedures are commonly assessed using patient-reported outcome measures including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the Rowe instability score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The clinical significance thresholds for these measures after arthroscopic posterior labral repair (aPLR), however, remain undefined.

PURPOSE

We aimed to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the SANE, Rowe score, and ASES score as well as the VAS pain after aPLR. Additionally, we sought to determine preoperative factors predictive of reaching, as well as failing to reach, clinical significance.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of patient-reported outcome scores collected from patients who underwent aPLR between January 2011 and December 2018. To determine the clinically significant threshold that corresponded to achieving a meaningful outcome, the MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for the SANE, Rowe score, ASES score, and VAS pain utilizing either an anchor- or distribution-based method. Additionally, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with achieving, or not achieving, the MCID, SCB, and PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 82.55 ± 24.20 months were available for final analysis. MCID, SCB, and PASS values for the VAS pain were 1.10, 6, and 3, respectively; for the ASES score were 7.8, 34, and 80, respectively; for the SANE were 10.15, 33, and 85, respectively; and for the Rowe score were 11.3, 60, and 90, respectively. To meet the MCID, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.1639; P = .0293) was found to be a positive predictor for the VAS pain, and a lower preoperative SANE score (OR, 0.9939; P = .0003) was found to be a negative predictor for the SANE. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving the PASS for the ASES score (OR, 0.7834; P = .0259) and VAS pain (OR, 0.7887; P = .0436). Patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma were more likely to reach the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3501; P = .0089), Rowe score (OR, 1.3938; P = .0052), and VAS pain (OR, 1.3507; P = .0104) as well as the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.2642; P = .0469) and SANE (OR, 1.2554; P = .0444). A higher preoperative VAS pain score was associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for both the VAS pain (OR, 1.1653; P = .0110) and Rowe score (OR, 1.1282; P = .0175). Lastly, concomitant biceps tenodesis was associated with greater odds of achieving the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.3490; P = .0130) and reaching the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3825; P = .0038) and Rowe score (OR, 1.4040; P = .0035).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to define the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the ASES score, Rowe score, SANE, and VAS pain in patients undergoing aPLR. Furthermore, we found that patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma and those who underwent concomitant biceps tenodesis demonstrated a greater likelihood of achieving clinical significance. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving clinical significance.

Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior Tears

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to determine why athletes did not return to play (RTP) following operative management of superior-labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears, compare these athletes to those who did RTP, and evaluate the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score to assess the psychological readiness of athletes to RTP after operative management of SLAP tears.

Methods

A retrospective review of athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears with a minimum of 24-month follow-up was performed. Outcome data, including visual analog scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again was collected. Additionally, the rate and timing of return to work (RTW), the rate and timing of RTP, SLAP-RSI score, and VAS during sport were evaluated, with subgroup analysis among overhead and contact athletes. The SLAP-RSI is a modification of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SI-RSI) score, with a score >56 considered to be a passing score for being psychologically ready to RTP.

Results

The study included 209 athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears. A significantly higher percentage of patients who were able to return to play passed the SLAP-RSI benchmark of 56 compared to those who were unable to return (82.3% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and the mean overall SLAP-RSI scores were also significantly higher among those capable of returning to play (76.8 vs 50.0; P < .0001). Additionally, there was a significant difference between the two groups in every component of the SLAP-RSI score (P < .05 for all). Fear of reinjury and the feeling of instability were the most common reasons for not returning to play among contact athletes. Residual pain was the most common complaint among overhead athletes. A binary regression model predicting return to sports was performed, which demonstrated ASES score (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04, 95%; (confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.07; P = .009), RTW within 1 month after surgery (OR: 3.52, 95%; CI: 1.01-12.3; P = .048), and SLAP-RSI score (OR: 1.03, 95%; CI: 1.01-1.05; P = .001) were all associated with greater likelihood of return to sports at final follow-up.

Conclusions

Following the operative management of SLAP tears, patients who are unable to RTP exhibit poor psychological readiness to return, which may be due to residual pain in overhead athletes or fear of reinjury in contact athletes. Lastly, the SLAP-RSI tool in combination with ASES proved to be useful in identifying patients' psychological and physical readiness to RTP.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, prognostic case series.

SLAP Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis in Patients Younger Than 40 Years: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tears in patients younger than 40 years is controversial, but growing evidence suggests comparable outcomes between primary SLAP repair and primary biceps tenodesis, with lower rates of reoperations after primary biceps tenodesis. Given the relatively similar patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness analyses of direct and indirect costs associated with the two procedures propound a valuable comparative technique.

HYPOTHESIS

In this value-based comparison of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis, we hypothesized that biceps tenodesis would be more cost-effective than SLAP repair in patients younger than 40 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A 1-month Markov cycle was simulated to reflect 10 years of health outcomes. Health states were selected based on outcomes that are especially important in assessing indirect costs for a younger, active patient population: return-to-sport rates, which demonstrate a return to baseline function, and reoperation rates. Transition state probabilities were obtained through an index systematic review and meta-analysis comparing labral repair and biceps tenodesis for the treatment of type II SLAP lesions in patients younger than 40 years. Health state utility and cost values were obtained from accepted values denoted in existing literature.

RESULTS

Both primary SLAP repair and primary biceps tenodesis yielded an average expected 8.1 quality-adjusted life years over the 10-year period. The average cost (in 2021 US$) was $16,619 for biceps tenodesis and $19,388 for SLAP repair.

CONCLUSION

In a younger patient population, SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis had comparable quality-adjusted life years and utility in the treatment of type II SLAP tears; however, SLAP repair cost $19,388, while biceps tenodesis cost $16,619, reflecting a 14% cost savings with biceps tenodesis. These findings can be extrapolated to further establish the role for these procedures in treating SLAP tears.