Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Compromise Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) with concomitant biceps tenodesis with those who underwent an isolated RCR. METHODS: Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P = .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P = .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42 ± 0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P = .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P = .001) than the isolated RCR group. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case study.

Effects of Inertial Load on Sagittal Plane Kinematics of the Lower Extremity During Flywheel-Based Squats.

ABSTRACT: Worcester, KS, Baker, PA, and Bollinger, LM. Effects of inertial load on sagittal plane kinematics of the lower extremity during flywheel-based squats. J Strength Cond Res 36(1): 63-69, 2022-Increasing load increases flexion of lower extremity joints during weighted squats; however, the effects of inertial load on lower extremity kinematics during flywheel-based resistance training (FRT) squats remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sagittal plane kinematics of lower extremity joints during FRT squats at various inertial loads. Nine recreationally resistance-trained subjects (3M, 6F) completed a bout of FRT squats with inertial loads of 0.050, 0.075, and 0.100 kg·m2. Two-dimensional sagittal plane kinematics were monitored with retroreflective markers at a rate of 60 Hz. Joint angles and angular velocities of the knee, trunk + hip, trunk inclination, and ankle were quantified throughout concentric and eccentric actions. Effects of inertial load were determined by repeated-measures analysis of variance with α = 0.05. Average power and average vertical velocity decreased with increasing inertial load, whereas average force increased. Minimal and maximal sagittal plane joint angles of the knee, trunk + hip, trunk inclination, and ankle were not significantly different among inertial loads. However, peak joint angular velocities of the knee and trunk + hip tended to decrease with increasing inertial load. Conversely trunk inclination and ankle dorsiflexion velocities were not significantly different among inertial loads. Increasing inertial load from 0.050 to 0.100 kg·m2 significantly reduces average power during FRT squats primarily by decreasing movement velocity, which seems to be specific to the knee and hip joints. It is possible that lower concentric energy input at high inertial loads prevents increased joint flexion during FRT squats.

Clinical Outcomes of Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Fast-Setting Bone Graft Substitute.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be achieved in a single-stage or two-stage approach. Single-stage revisions have several advantages, including one less operation, decreased cost, and a quicker recovery for patients. Revision ACLR can be complicated by malpositioned or dilated bone tunnels, which makes a single-stage revision more challenging or sometimes necessitates a two-stage approach. The use of fast-setting bone graft substitutes (BGS) has been described in recent literature as a strategy to potentially help address this problem in the setting of single-stage revision ACLR. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone single-stage revision ACLR using fast-setting BGS to address prior malpositioned or dilated tunnels. A retrospective review was conducted of the first nine consecutive patients who had undergone single-stage revision ACLR using a fast-setting BGS by a single surgeon between May 2017 and February 2020 with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported clinical outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, the Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, patient satisfaction questions, and the need for additional surgery were evaluated for this group between 26 and 49 months postoperative. Of the nine patients eligible for inclusion, eight patients (88.9%) were evaluated, and one was lost to follow-up. At an average follow-up of 37.9 months (range: 27.8-55.7), the mean postoperative IKDC score was 75.0 ± 11.3, and the mean postoperative Tegner Lysholm Knee Score was 83.0 ± 17.6. None of the patients required additional revision surgery or experienced construct failure at the time of follow-up. Seven of eight respondents (87.5%) had their preoperative expectations met with the surgery, and 100% of patients stated they would have the surgery again. Single-stage revision ACLR using fast-setting BGS showed overall positive clinical outcomes for this pilot group of patients at a minimum 2-year follow-up. In select revision scenarios, these materials may be a valuable option to allow the filling of defects without compromising fixation or clinical outcomes.