The effect of intravenous tranexamic acid on visual clarity in arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared to epinephrine and a placebo: a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The addition of epinephrine in irrigation fluid and the intravenous or local administration of tranexamic acid have independently been reported to decrease bleeding, thereby improving surgeons' visualization during arthroscopic shoulder procedures. No study has compared the effect of intravenous tranexamic acid, epinephrine in the irrigation fluid, or the combination of both tranexamic acid and epinephrine on visual clarity during shoulder arthroscopy with a placebo group. We hypothesized that intravenous tranexamic acid is more effective than epinephrine mixed in the irrigation fluid in improving visualization during shoulder arthroscopy, with no additive effect when both are used. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing shoulder arthroscopy were randomized into one of 4 study arms: (1) saline irrigation fluid (placebo); (2) epinephrine (0.33 mL of 1:1000 per liter) mixed in irrigation fluid (EPI); (3) 1 g intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA); and (4) epinephrine and tranexamic acid combined (TXA + EPI). Visualization was rated intraoperatively on a scale from 0, indicating poor clarity, to 3, indicating excellent clarity, every 15 minutes and overall. The primary outcome measure was the overall rating of visualization. A stepwise linear regression was performed using visualization as the dependent variable and independent variables including presence or absence of epinephrine and tranexamic acid, surgery duration, complexity, mean arterial pressure, increase in pump pressure, and volume of irrigation fluid. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients (mean age 56 years) were randomized. Mean visual clarity for the placebo, TXA, EPI, and TXA + EPI groups were 2.0 (±0.6), 2.0 (±0.6), 2.6 (±0.5), and 2.7 (±0.5), respectively (P < .001). The presence or absence of epinephrine was the most significant predictor of visual clarity (P < .001). Tranexamic acid presence or absence had no effect. No adverse events were recorded in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: Intravenous tranexamic acid is not an effective alternative to epinephrine in irrigation fluid to improve visualization during routine arthroscopic shoulder surgeries, and there is no additive effect when both are used.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without arthroscopic infraspinatus remplissage in anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs defect: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported and clinic outcomes between arthroscopic Bankart repair with (REMP) and without (NO REMP) arthroscopic infraspinatus remplissage in patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and minimal glenoid bone loss. METHODS: Patients 14 years or older with a recurrent anterior shoulder instability with the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs defect (of any size) confirmed on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging were eligible to participate. Consented patients were randomized intraoperatively to NO REMP or REMP. Study visits were conducted preoperatively and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score. Secondary outcomes included incidence of postoperative recurrent shoulder instability, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, range of motion, complications, and revision surgery. To compare groups, a mixed-effects linear model was used for continuous variables and a χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical data. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis assessed survival distribution between groups. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients were randomized to Bankart repair with (n = 54) or without (n = 54) remplissage. The mean follow-up was 26.5 months (21-53 months) and 24.3 months (23-64 months) for the REMP and NO REMP groups, respectively. Rates of postoperative recurrent instability were higher (P = .027) in the NO REMP group with 9 of 50 (18%) vs. 2 of 52 (4%) postoperative dislocations in the REMP group. There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between groups at any time point. Survival curve distributions were also significantly different favoring REMP (χ2 = 5.255, P = .022). There was a significant difference in rate of revision surgery between groups with 6 in the NO REMP and none in the REMP groups (P = .029). Post hoc, patients were noted to have a higher risk for re-dislocation if their Hill-Sachs lesion was ≥20 mm in width or ≥15% of humeral head diameter. One intraoperative complication was reported in the REMP group. CONCLUSIONS: There is significantly greater risk of postoperative recurrent instability in patients who did not have a remplissage performed in conjunction with an arthroscopic Bankart repair for the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with Hill-Sachs lesions of any size and minimal glenoid bone loss (<15%) at 2 years postoperatively. Otherwise, there are no differences in patient-reported outcomes, complications, or shoulder function at 2 years postoperatively. In addition, the remplissage procedure has significantly lower rates of re-dislocation in high-risk patients with Hill-Sachs lesions ≥20 mm and/or ≥15% in size.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Lateral Release for the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to determine whether quality of life and function, as measured using subjective questionnaires and clinical assessment, are different after open versus arthroscopic debridement of the pathologic extensor carpi radialis brevis origin in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis at 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: Patients older than 16 years with a minimum of 6 months of nonoperative management for lateral epicondylitis were recruited into this prospective, single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized intraoperatively to undergo open or arthroscopic release. Scores on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure; visual analog scale (VAS); and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) were recorded preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Grip strength was assessed by an independent assessor. All patients followed the same physiotherapy regimen. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2014, we randomized 37 patients to the open technique and 38 to the arthroscopic technique. Both groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 12 months postoperatively (P < .001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups when comparing the DASH score, VAS score, PRTEE score, or grip strength at any time point. The only significant difference between study groups was that the arthroscopic technique resulted in a longer surgery time: 34.0 minutes (standard error of the mean, 2.9 minutes) versus 22.5 minutes (standard error of the mean, 1.3 minutes) (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the open versus arthroscopic technique in the surgical management of lateral epicondylitis through a randomized clinical trial, we determined that there was no difference between the 2 operative modalities when examining the DASH score, VAS score, PRTEE score, grip strength, or complication rate at 12 months postoperatively. A shorter operative time coupled with potentially less setup time may favor open release. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, lower-quality randomized trial.

Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage in Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in Fewer Redislocations Than Bankart Repair Alone at Medium-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: A multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) to Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) reported benefits of remplissage in reducing recurrent instability at 2 years postoperative. The ongoing benefits beyond this time point are yet to be explored. PURPOSE: To (1) compare medium-term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of these previously randomized patients undergoing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) to manage recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability; (2) examine the failure rate, overall recurrent instability, and reoperation rate. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Recruitment and randomization for the original randomized trial occurred between 2011 and 2017. Patients ≥14 years diagnosed with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with an engaging Hill-Sachs defect of any size were included. Those with a glenoid defect >15% were excluded. In 2020, participants were contacted by telephone and asked standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation, or reoperation on their study shoulder. "Failure" was defined as a redislocation, and "overall recurrent instability" was described as a redislocation or ≥2 subluxations. Descriptive statistics, relative risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 108 participants were randomized, of whom 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to the final follow-up was 49.3 and 53.8 months for the NO REMP and REMP groups, respectively. Failure rates were 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP group versus 8% (4/52) in the REMP group. Rates of overall recurrent instability were 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group versus 10% (5/52) in the REMP group. Survival curves were significantly different, favoring REMP in both scenarios. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative recurrent instability was observed with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage than with isolated Bankart repair at a medium-term follow-up (mean of 4 years). Patients who did not receive a remplissage experienced a failure (redislocated) earlier and had a higher rate of revision/reoperation than those who received a concomitant remplissage. REGISTRATION: NCT01324531 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Elbow arthroscopy in acute injuries.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopy of the elbow has become a standard treatment option for many indications. The purpose of this article is to review literature concerning the use of arthroscopy for acute elbow injuries. METHODS: The main medical literature databases were searched for articles on the use of elbow arthroscopy in acute injuries. A total of 13 publications relevant to the topic were included. The Coleman methodology score was used to assess the methods of each article. RESULTS: All published articles have been case reports or retrospective case series. In fracture treatment, arthroscopy has been used in the treatment of displaced radial head, coronoid and capitellum fractures in adults and displaced radial neck and lateral humeral condyle fractures in children with good results. Endoscopic techniques have been used in distal biceps rupture and medial avulsion of the triceps. And also new techniques have been developed for the treatment of intra-articular soft-tissue lesions like rupture of the radial ulnohumeral ligament complex. One of the 13 studies analyzed was considered of good quality, 5 of moderate quality and all others of poor quality with inconsistent methodology and outcomes. CONCLUSION: The range of treatments using elbow arthroscopy in acute injuries is expanding and brings new controversies and challenges. Single reports of arthroscopically treated bony and soft-tissue injuries of the elbow showed satisfactory results. However, further randomized prospective studies are needed to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with open 'gold standard' techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Biceps Tenodesis Versus Tenotomy in the Treatment of Lesions of the Long Head of the Biceps Tendon in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Prospective Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The biceps tendon is a known source of shoulder pain. Few high-level studies have attempted to determine whether biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal approach in the treatment of biceps pathology. Most available literature is of lesser scientific quality and shows varying results in the comparison of tenotomy and tenodesis. PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported and objective clinical results between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing arthroscopic surgery with intraoperative confirmation of a lesion of the long head of the biceps tendon were randomized. The primary outcome measure was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, while secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) score, elbow and shoulder strength, operative time, complications, and the incidence of revision surgery with each procedure. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at postoperative 1 year to evaluate the integrity of the procedure in the tenodesis group. RESULTS: A total of 114 participants with a mean age of 57.7 years (range, 34 years to 86 years) were randomized to undergo either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. ASES and WORC scores improved significantly from pre- to postoperative time points, with a mean difference of 32.3% (P < .001) and 37.3% (P < .001), respectively, with no difference between groups in either outcome from presurgery to postoperative 24 months. The relative risk of cosmetic deformity in the tenotomy group relative to the tenodesis group at 24 months was 3.5 (95% CI, 1.26-9.70; P = .016), with 4 (10%) occurrences in the tenodesis group and 15 (33%) in the tenotomy group. Pain improved from 3 to 24 months postoperatively (P < .001) with no difference between groups. Cramping was not different between groups, nor was any improvement in cramping seen over time. There were no differences between groups in elbow flexion strength or supination strength. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging at postoperative 12 months showed that the tenodesis was intact for all patients. CONCLUSION: Tenotomy and tenodesis as treatment for lesions of the long head of biceps tendon both result in good subjective outcomes but there is a higher rate of Popeye deformity in the tenotomy group. REGISTRATION: NCT01747902 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).