Subpectoral biceps tenodesis for bicipital tendonitis with SLAP tear.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing subpectoral biceps tenodesis for bicipital tendonitis with a superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tear. Patients undergoing primary subpectoral biceps tenodesis for arthroscopically confirmed SLAP tears with signs or findings of bicipital tendonitis were included. An independent observer collected data prospectively as part of a data repository, which was then analyzed retrospectively. Primary outcome measures were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and pain relief via visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) scores. Twenty-eight patients with a mean±SD age of 43.7±13.4 years and a mean±SD follow-up of 2.0±1.0 years met inclusion criteria. Workers' compensation was involved with 43% of cases, and 46% of the included patients were manual laborers. Eight (32%) patients were athletes, and 88% of the athletes were overhead athletes. Intraoperatively, 15 (54%) patients had type I SLAP tears, 10 (36%) had type II SLAP tears, 1 (3%) had a type III SLAP tear, and 2 (7%) had type IV SLAP tears. Significant improvements were seen in the following outcome measures pre- vs postoperatively: ASES score (58±23 vs 89±18; P=.001), SST score (6.3±3.6 vs 10.6±3.3; P=.001), SANE score (54±24 vs 88±25; P=.003), VAS score (3.8±2.0 vs 1.1±1.8; P=.001), SF-12 overall score (35±6 vs 42±6; P=.001), and SF-12 physical component score (39±6 vs 50±10; P=.001). Overall satisfaction was excellent in 80% of patients. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes in select patients with SLAP tears. [Orthopedics. 2015; 38(1):e48-e53.].

Histologic assessment of acetabular labrum healing.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to histologically examine the human healing response of arthroscopically repaired acetabular labrum tears. METHODS: Biopsy specimens were retrieved from 6 patients during total hip arthroplasty after clinical failure of the index arthroscopic procedure. All patients were diagnosed as having femoroacetabular impingement with a concomitant labral tear. In all cases severe chondral damage was observed during arthroscopy (Beck grades 3 to 4). Despite successful technical repair of the labral tear, chondral damage in these patients was so advanced that the clinical progress after the procedure was unsatisfactory and arthroplasty of the joint was required. Biopsy specimens of the repaired acetabular labra were harvested during the arthroplasty surgery and processed for standard histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Macroscopically and histologically, all repaired labra kept their triangular shape more or less and appeared to have healed. All harvested biopsy specimens displayed a typical fibrocartilaginous appearance with limited vascular supply. Calcifications were present in only 1 biopsy specimen. In 3 cases neovascularization of the labral tissue was noticed in the proximity of the sutures. In the superficial and deep parts of the labral body, small clefts were observed in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this study the histologic aspects of arthroscopically repaired human labral tears were addressed. It was shown that human labral tears show healing potential after surgical repair. The surfaces of the labral tissues were intact, and neither remnants of the tear nor the presence of fibrovascular scar tissue was observed. However, some small clefts in the superior and deep parts of the repaired structures were noticed in all cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Poly-L/D-lactic acid anchors are associated with reoperation and failure of SLAP repairs.

PURPOSE: This study investigates factors associated with failure and reoperation after glenoid labrum repair. METHODS: We studied a nonconcurrent cohort of consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic superior labrum repair at a single institution by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons over a 10-year period. RESULTS: There were 348 patients included in this study with a mean age of 33.4 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.1 to 35.9) and a mean clinical follow-up of 12.3 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 13.8). The overall reoperation rate was 6.3%, with a revision labrum repair rate of 4.3%. Subsequent surgery and failure after arthroscopic labrum repair were significantly correlated with Workers' Compensation claims (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; P < .001; 95% CI, 1.8 to 11.7), the use of tobacco (OR, 12.0; P = .03; 95% CI, 1.2 to 114.9), and the use of absorbable poly-L/D-lactic acid (PLDLA) anchors (100% correlation, P < .001). The OR for having repeat surgery was 12.7 (95% CI, 4.9 to 32.9; P < .001) with poly-96L/4D-lactic acid (Mini-Revo; Linvatec, Largo, FL) and also increased with the use of poly-70L/30D-lactic acid (Bio-Fastak and Bio-Suturetak; Arthrex, Naples, FL) anchor material (P = .04) after removal of the patients exposed to poly-96L/4D-lactic acid anchors. The rates of repeat surgery with PLDLA anchors from Linvatec and PLDLA anchors from Arthrex were 24% and 4%, respectively. None of the patients treated with nonabsorbable suture anchors (polyether ether ketone or metallic) returned to the operating room (P < .001). After we controlled for associated factors in a multivariate analysis, the use of absorbable anchors, in particular poly-96L/4D-lactic acid anchors (OR, 14.7; P < .001), and having a work-related injury (OR, 8.1; P < .001) remained independent factors associated with both repeat surgery and revision superior labrum repair. CONCLUSIONS: Bioabsorbable PLDLA anchor material led to significantly more SLAP repair failures and reoperations compared with nonabsorbable suture anchors. Our recommendation is that glenoid labrum repairs be performed with nondegradable material and, specifically, that the use of anchors composed of PLDLA material should be avoided.

Arthroscopic versus open Bankart repair: analysis of patient subjective outcome and cost.

PURPOSE: Although the comparative efficacy of open and arthroscopic Bankart repair remains a matter of debate, little data exist on relative costs. We analyzed the patient outcomes, cost, and resource utilization of both procedures to determine if differences exist between open versus arthroscopic Bankart repair. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective case-control study. METHODS: We compared 22 patients who had open Bankart repair with 20 patients who had arthroscopic Bankart repair. Total operating times and all charges were obtained from records. Patients were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, and any recurrence of dislocation was noted at minimum 24-month follow-up. RESULTS: For arthroscopic Bankart repairs, operating times were shorter, but operating room equipment charges were greater. Overall charges were greater for open repairs as all open repair patients were admitted postoperatively. ASES shoulder scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. Four of 17 evaluable patients with open Bankart repair (including 1 shoulder in a patient who underwent bilateral repairs) had recurrent dislocation. One of the 18 evaluable patients with arthroscopic Bankart repair had recurrent dislocation. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic Bankart repair as same-day surgery has lower overall charges than open repair, although this difference would be negligible if all patients went home immediately after surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic, retrospective cohort study.