Dataset Information

Sham surgery versus labral repair or biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions of the shoulder: a three-armed randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Labral repair and biceps tenodesis are routine operations for superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their efficacy is lacking. We evaluated the effect of labral repair, biceps tenodesis and sham surgery on SLAP lesions.

Methods

A double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted with 118 surgical candidates (mean age 40 years), with patient history, clinical symptoms and MRI arthrography indicating an isolated type II SLAP lesion. Patients were randomly assigned to either labral repair (n=40), biceps tenodesis (n=39) or sham surgery (n=39) if arthroscopy revealed an isolated SLAP II lesion. Primary outcomes at 6 and 24 months were clinical Rowe score ranging from 0 to 100 (best possible) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ranging from 0 (best possible) to 2100. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Instability Shoulder Score, change in main symptoms, EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction and complications.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences at any follow-up in any outcome. Between-group differences in Rowe scores at 2 years were: biceps tenodesis versus labral repair: 1.0 (95% CI -5.4 to 7.4), p=0.76; biceps tenodesis versus sham surgery: 1.6 (95% CI -5.0 to 8.1), p=0.64; and labral repair versus sham surgery: 0.6 (95% CI -5.9 to 7.0), p=0.86. Similar results-no differences between groups-were found for WOSI scores. Postoperative stiffness occurred in five patients after labral repair and in four patients after tenodesis.

Conclusion

Neither labral repair nor biceps tenodesis had any significant clinical benefit over sham surgery for patients with SLAP II lesions in the population studied.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00586742.

SUBMITTER: Schroder CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5754846 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose:To investigate the demographics of patients for whom SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis was performed, as well as to compare rates of additional shoulder surgery for these 2 procedures within 3 years postoperatively. Methods:Using the MarketScan Commercial Database, we examined all patients with SLAP tear who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis within the encompassed time period (2003-2014). Rates of repeat shoulder surgery within 3 years were evaluated, as were comparative demographics. Results:In total, 25,142 patients initially underwent SLAP repair, of whom 11.5% had subsequent shoulder surgery within 3 years. A total of 840 patients initially underwent biceps tenodesis as treatment for a SLAP tear, of whom 13.0% underwent additional shoulder surgery within 3 years. Rates of subsequent shoulder surgery between the 2 procedural groups did not statistically differ (P = .19). Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis (mean age 38.3 vs 49.3 years, P < .01). For patients requiring additional surgery, the SLAP repair group had a greater representation of those ?35 years old, whereas the tenodesis group had a greater representation of those <35 years old (P < .01). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially undergoing tenodesis versus SLAP repair (13.3% vs 11.1%, P < .01). Conclusions:The rates of additional shoulder surgery for patients undergoing SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis were similar within 3 years of the index procedure. Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis. Of those requiring additional surgery, patients initially treated with SLAP repair were older (?35 years) and those treated with tenodesis were younger (<35 years). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially treated with tenodesis versus SLAP repair. Level of Evidence:III, retrospective comparative study.

Project description:Background:Type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions could induce chronic shoulder pain and impaired movement. Current management of Type II SLAP lesions consists of two well-established surgical procedures: arthroscopic biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair. However, which technique is preferred over the other is still a controversy. Methods:We performed a systematic electronic database search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles equating superior labral repair with biceps tenodesis, which were reported before August 2017 which included the phrase "superior labral anterior posterior" or "SLAP." The randomised controlled clinical trials that met our criteria were evaluated for quality of methodology. The results obtained were further analysed and correlated to present the benefits and drawbacks comparing the two SLAP repair surgical procedures. Result:Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified five articles (204 patients) that were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicate that prevalence of patients return to preinjury sports level and the patients satisfaction were found to be significantly better in tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group (p < 0.05). As for the patient age, VAS score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California at Los Angeles score, postoperative stiffness and reoperation rates, no significant differences were evident among the two groups, thus supporting the results reported in the current literatures (p > 0.05). Conclusions:Both the surgical treatments, SLAP repair and the biceps tenodesis, are efficacious in pain alleviation and recovery of shoulder function. But, compared with SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis showed higher rate of patient satisfaction and return to preinjury sports participation. The translational potential of this article:Impart better understanding regarding discrepancies in the outcomes between biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair in treating patients with isolated Type II SLAP lesions.

Project description:Purpose To compare satisfaction and return to play (RTP) rates between patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis for a symptomatic SLAP tear and patients undergoing secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent subpectoral mini-open biceps tenodesis following failed SLAP repair between January 2011 and October 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria included age older than 16 years, skeletal maturity, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Both athletes and nonathletes were included across all types of sport. Patients who had anterior or posterior instability or rotator cuff tears were excluded; in addition, those requiring concomitant procedures were excluded. Case–control matching was performed using age, sex, indication, follow-up, and type of sport, to generate a 3:1 control group for the primary biceps tenodesis cohort. Primary outcome measurements were collected via telephone in 2020 and included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and revisions. RTP and timing of RTP were evaluated as secondary outcomes. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results The current study included 76 patients in total; 57 patients with primary biceps tenodesis, and 19 patients with secondary biceps tenodesis. The mean age was 39 years (19-48 years), 100% were male, and the mean follow-up was 54 months (16-99 months). Patient reported outcomes were obtained postoperatively via telephone survey. Overall, we found that primary biceps tenodesis patients reported greater American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (89.9 vs 76.4, P = .0162), lower visual analog scale scores (1.0 vs 3.1, P = .0034), and greater Subjective Shoulder Value scores (86.7 vs 64.7, P = .0004). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (84% vs 75%, P = .5025), or timing of RTP (8.2 months vs 8.1 months, P = .9529) between patient groups. Patients reported playing tennis, swimming, golf, rock climbing, and basketball. No patients required a further shoulder surgery after undergoing biceps tenodesis. Conclusions In this study, patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis had significantly better functional outcomes compared with secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. Level of Evidence III, retrospective comparative study.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate clinical outcomes, return to sport, and complication rate in patients with an isolated SLAP II-IV tear treated with biceps tenodesis (BT), SLAP-repair (SLAP-R), or both (SLAP-R+BT).MethodsA retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed in patients who underwent surgery between February 2006 and February 2018 for isolated SLAP II-IV lesions with either BT, SLAP-R, or SLAP-R+BT and had minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were excluded if they were older than 45 years of age, had anterior shoulder instability, rotator cuff tears, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or concomitant fractures about the shoulder. Clinical outcomes were assessed by the use of the American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation Score, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, and Shoulder and Hand Score, the General Health Short Form-12 Physical Component, and patient satisfaction.ResultsThere were 38 shoulders in the isolated BT group with 1 (2.6%) shoulder requiring revision, 13 in the SLAP-R group with no patient requiring revision, and 21 in the SLAP-R+BT group with 2 (9.5%) shoulders requiring revision. Minimum 2-year follow-up was obtained in >85% of each group. Mean age at time of surgery was significantly different between the groups (36.5 years BT vs 27.7 years SLAP-R vs 36.5 years SLAP-R+BT; P = .003). While patient-reported outcomes improved significantly from pre- to postoperatively for the BT (P < .001) and SLAP-R+BT groups (P < .001), they did not significantly improve for the isolated SLAP-R group (P values ranging .635 to .123). The BT and SLAP-R+BT groups showed significant improvement in return to sport pre- to postoperatively whereas the SLAP-R group did not. The SLAP-R+BT group had the most patients reaching minimal clinical important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score scores; however, this was not statistically significant.ConclusionsSLAP II-IV lesions treated with BT or both SLAP-R+BT demonstrated improved outcomes compared with isolated SLAP-R at minimum 2-year follow-up. Concomitant biceps tenodesis should be considered when performing repair of SLAP II-IV tears.Level of evidenceIII; Retrospective comparative study.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare days on sick leave and assess predictors of return to work following shoulder surgery. DESIGN:A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Orthopaedic department. PARTICIPANTS:114 patients with type II superior labral tear from anterior to posterior of the shoulder. INTERVENTIONS:Labral repair, biceps tenodesis or sham surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES:Sick leave was obtained from national registers for the last year before and 2?years following surgery. Total and shoulder related number of days on sick leave were obtained, using international diagnostic codes. We applied the difference-in-difference approach to compare the differences in the change in mean work days on sick leave between groups over time, backwards logistic regression and lasso regression to evaluate predictors. RESULTS:Mean total number of work days on sick leave during the 2 years after surgery was 148 (range 0-460) days. More than 80% of the sick leave days were taken by 22% of the patients. Days on sick leave classified as shoulder-related constituted 80% of the total. In all three treatment groups, the mean total number of days on sick leave doubled the year after surgery. Sham surgery and labral repair had fewer postoperative sickness absence days compared with biceps tenodesis but differences were not significant when adjusted for days of sick leave the year before surgery. Predictors of return to work at 2 years analysed by logistic regression were no sick leave (OR 8.0, 95%?CI 2.4 to 26.0) and moderate symptoms of anxiety or depression (OR 0.16, 95%?CI 0.05 to 0.5) at inclusion. Similar results were obtained by lasso regression but manual work was an additional predictor. CONCLUSIONS:Change in mean work days on sick leave comparing sham surgery, labral repair and biceps tenodesis, was not significantly different. Sick leave, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and manual work at inclusion predicted work status 2 years after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00586742.