Type V Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair - A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean ASES score was 88.3, the mean SSV score was 85.5%, and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in VAS pain scores (MD; 0.15, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, p = 0.29) and recurrence rates (RR; 1.38, 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.15, I2 = 0%, p = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Intramedullary nailing vs. open reduction-internal fixation for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare outcomes following intramedullary nailing (IMN) vs. open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) for humeral shaft fractures.

METHODS

A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. RCTs comparing IMN and ORIF for humeral shaft fractures were included. Clinical outcomes were compared using RevMan. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 512 patients were included. Overall, 8.4% of patients treated with IMN and 6.4% of patients treated with ORIF had nonunion (P = .57, I2 = 0%), with a significantly faster time to union with IMN (10 weeks vs. 11.9 weeks, P < .05). There was no significant difference in the rate of reoperation (11.6% in IMN group vs. 7.6% in ORIF group, P = .26) or radial nerve palsy (2.8% in IMN group vs. 4.2% in ORIF group, P = .58). A lower rate of infection was noted with IMN (1.2% vs. 5.3%, P < .05). Additionally, there was a lower operative time with IMN (61 minutes vs. 88 minutes, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Level I evidence in the literature does not show a significant difference in rates of union, reoperation, or radial nerve palsy between IMN and ORIF for humeral shaft fractures. Overall, treatment with IMN results in a lower infection rate, less operative time, and a modestly quicker time to union. The optimal treatment strategy for humeral shaft fractures may be best informed by fracture pattern and surgeon preference.

Subscapularis repair for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature evaluating the importance of subscapularis repair in patients who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

A systematic search of articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing RSA with subscapularis repair vs. RSA without subscapularis repair were included. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 2620 patients were included. Subscapularis repair resulted in less instability compared to without subscapularis repair (0.8% vs. 4.2%, P = .04), and there were no significant differences in rate of instability with lateralization (0.6% vs. 1.6%, P = .40), revision rates (2.6% vs. 3.9%, P = .62), and complication rates (7.7% vs. 4.9%, P = .21). Subscapularis repair had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (83.6 vs. 80.2, P = .02) and Constant scores (72.6 vs. 68.9, P < .01) but there was not a significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores (1.2 vs. 1.6, P = .11). Subscapularis repair had a significant difference in forward flexion (140° vs. 137°, P = .04) and internal rotation score (5.5 vs. 4.6, P = .001); however, there was no significant difference in external rotation (35° vs. 35°, P = .80) and abduction (117° vs. 123°, P = .13).

CONCLUSION

This study found that RSA with subscapularis repair demonstrated a reduction in the occurrence of implant instability with medialized implants. However, subscapularis repair did not yield improvements in revision rates, complications, or instability with lateralized implants. Additionally, other outcome measures such as ASES, Constant score, and range of motion exhibited statistically significant improvements with subscapularis repair but did not surpass clinically significant thresholds.