Dataset Information

Return to Play after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Combined with Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and rate of return to play (RTP) in patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016 was performed. RTP, the level of return, and the timing of return were assessed. Visual analog scale for pain, Rowe score, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score, and Subjective Shoulder Value were evaluated.

Results

The study included 14 patients, with a mean follow-up of 34.2 ± 12.1 months. Of the 14 patients, 13 (92.9%) returned to sport at a mean of 4.8 ± 1.2 months and 9 (64.3%) returned to the same or higher level of sport. At final follow-up, the mean Rowe was 80.0 ± 16.3, the mean Subjective Shoulder Value was 81.0 ± 15.1, the mean Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury was 57.3 ± 25.6, and the mean visual analog scale score was 2.6 ± 1.5. One patient had a recurrent dislocation, whereas no patients underwent a further operation on the ipsilateral shoulder.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had a high rate of RTP with a low rate of recurrent instability.

Level of evidence

IV, Therapeutic Case Series.

SUBMITTER: Toale JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7588640 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Return to Play after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Combined with Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

Toale James P JP Hurley Eoghan T ET Davey Martin S MS Cassidy J Tristan JT Pauzenberger Leo L Mullett Hannan H

Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation 20201024 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the clinical outcomes and rate of return to play (RTP) in patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective review of patients who underwent combined arthroscopic Bankart repair and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2016 was performed. RTP, the level of return, and the timing of return were assessed. Visual analog scale for pain, Rowe score, Shoulder Instability ...[more]

PMID: 33134986

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known regarding the effect of early active elbow range of motion (ROM) protocols on failure rates and outcomes after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis.HypothesisWe hypothesized that patients managed using an early active ROM protocol after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis would demonstrate similar failure rates and functional outcomes compared to patients managed using a traditional delayed active ROM protocol.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsWe evaluated 63 patients who underwent open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation. Based on surgeon preference, 22 patients were managed using an early active motion protocol consisting of no restrictions on elbow flexion or forearm supination, while 41 patients were managed using a delayed motion protocol postoperatively. Primary outcome measures included failure of biceps tenodesis and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Secondary outcomes included shoulder and elbow ROM at 6 months postoperatively.ResultsThe mean follow-up for the 63 patients was 24.2 months postoperatively. One patient (2.4%) in the delayed active motion cohort and no patients in the early active motion cohort experienced failure. Final outcome scores as well as 6-month shoulder and elbow ROM indicated excellent functional outcomes, with no significant difference between motion cohorts. The median postoperative ASES scores were 97.99 in the early active motion cohort (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 95.49 ± 7.68) and 95.42 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 90.93 ± 16.08), while median postoperative SANE scores were 96 in the early motion cohort (mean ± SD, 94.23 ± 6.68) and 95 in the delayed motion cohort (mean ± SD, 88.39 ± 17.98). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in outcome scores based on the performance of concomitant rotator cuff repair or hand dominance.ConclusionEarly active ROM after open subpectoral biceps tenodesis with unicortical suture button fixation resulted in low failure rates and excellent clinical outcomes, comparable to the results of patients managed using delayed active ROM protocols. This suggests that patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis may be managed using either early or delayed active motion protocols without compromising functional outcome.

Project description:BackgroundIn young and active patients, long head of biceps (LHB) tenodesis has become a common procedure for managing LHB pathology, but it remains unclear whether it is performed in isolation or along with other shoulder procedures and whether open and arthroscopic techniques produce different complications.Questions/purposesWe sought to determine and compare open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis in terms of (a) trends in overall use, (b) trends in use in isolation and in association with rotator cuff repair (RCR) and superior labral tear from anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) debridement/repair, and (c) the rates of post-operative complications.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data from an insurance database to identify LHB tenodesis procedures performed from 2011 to 2014. The overall annual rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis were determined and then stratified according to concurrent RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. A multivariate logistic regression analysis that controlled for patient demographics (age, sex, comorbidity) was performed.ResultsOverall, 8547 patients underwent LHB tenodesis, of which 43.5% were open and 56.5% were arthroscopic procedures. There was a significant increase in the utilization of LHB tenodesis from 2011 to 2014. In isolation, open LHB tenodesis was the more common technique overall and by year. Arthroscopic LHB tenodesis was the most common tenodesis technique performed in conjunction with RCR and SLAP repair/debridement. The overall complication rate was 2.9%; only wound dehiscence demonstrated a difference between techniques.ConclusionsThe rates of open and arthroscopic LHB tenodesis procedures increased significantly from 2011 to 2014, with open techniques more common when LHB tenodesis is performed in isolation and arthroscopic techniques more common when performed as a concomitant procedure. Our use of a population database did not allow us to evaluate biomechanical or cost-related phenomena, and future research should examine these and other relevant differences between these two LHB tenodesis techniques.

Dataset Information

Return to Play after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Combined with Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Publications

Return to Play after Arthroscopic Bankart Repair Combined with Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets