No clinical difference in outcomes between inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques during rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) are common procedures performed during rotator cuff repair. The inlay method involves creating a bone socket in the bicipital groove to secure the long head of the biceps tendon using an interference screw. The onlay method utilizes a suture anchor to secure the long head of the biceps tendon on the surface of the bicipital groove. Little is known on the long-term differences in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 techniques. The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of inlay vs. onlay ABT with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary aims were to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff tear size on outcomes and compare rates of complications between the 2 techniques. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had an ABT during a full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Any symptom specific to the biceps were noted, including pain and cramping, Popeye deformity, or revision surgery. Complication rates were compared between groups. The visual analog scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veteran's RAND-12 score (VR-12) scores were compared at 2 years. The impact of rotator cuff tear size was analyzed by categorizing into small/medium or large/massive based on operative reports and arthroscopic images. RESULTS: There were 165 patients identified (106 in the inlay group and 59 in the onlay group). No revision surgeries were performed secondary to the biceps tendon in either group. Eleven patients (10%) in the inlay group complained of biceps pain or cramping compared to 2 patients (3%) in the onlay group (P = .11). One Popeye deformity was noted in each group (P = .67). No significant differences were found between groups for visual analog scale (P = .41), ASES functional (P = .61), ASES index (P = .91), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (P = .09), VR-12 Physical Component Score (P = .77), or VR-12 Mental Component Score (P = .09). Rotator cuff tear size within the groups also did not demonstrate statistical significance. CONCLUSION: No clinical differences or complications were found at minimum 2-year follow-up between inlay and onlay ABT in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair when controlling for tear size. The clinical relevance suggests either technique is effective and can be based on surgeon preference.

Increased stiffness and reoperation rate in partial rotator cuff repairs treated with a bovine patch: a propensity-matched trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating high-grade (grade 2 and 3) partial-thickness rotator cuff tears after failed conservative care remains challenging. Arthroscopic repair techniques are often considered with or without subacromial decompression and biological injections. More recently, a bioinductive bovine collagen patch (Regeneten; Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA) has been proposed to create a healing response and thicken the injured tendon. Although promising early results have been shown, previous studies lacked control subjects or comparison to other surgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the reoperation rates of arthroscopic débridement and repair without a bioinductive collagen patch vs. arthroscopic débridement and repair with a bioinductive collagen patch in patients with high-grade partial-thickness rotator cuff tears in whom a minimum of 6 months of nonoperative treatment failed. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with high-grade partial-thickness supraspinatus tears were treated with surgical repair with a bioinductive patch. A control group of 32 patients with high-grade partial-thickness supraspinatus tears treated with débridement or tear completion and repair without a bioinductive patch was selected and matched for age, sex, and tear size. Patients were followed up at regular intervals of 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, and range of motion was assessed at respective clinic visits. Stiffness and reoperations were compared between groups. RESULTS: Postoperative stiffness was observed in the first 12 weeks in 8 of 32 patients in the patch group compared with 1 of 32 patients in the control group. Six patients in the patch group underwent reoperations compared with no patients in the control group (P < .001). All 6 reoperations in the patch group were performed to address stiffness. There were no differences in race, smoking status, or diabetes between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Patients in the patch group had a significantly higher rate of postoperative stiffness. In the majority of patients in whom shoulder stiffness developed, reoperation was required.

Single shot interscalene regional anesthesia provides noninferior analgesia and decreased complications compared with an indwelling catheter for arthroscopic and reconstructive shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is an abundance of literature comparing the efficacy, safety, and complication rates of regional anesthesia in shoulder surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare analgesia efficacy, and complication rates between single shot and continuous catheters in patients undergoing arthroscopic or reconstructive shoulder surgery in a large cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 1888) who underwent shoulder arthroplasty or arthroscopic shoulder surgery and had regional anesthesia were included. Patients had either a single-shot interscalene block (SSIB) or an SSIB with a continuous interscalene nerve block with a catheter (CIB). The decision for SSIB or CIB was selected based on patient risk factors and surgeon preference. Patients received phone calls on postoperative days 1, 2, 7, and 14 to assess for pain levels (numeric rating scale [NRS]) and complications. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients received SSIB, and 1728 patients received CIB. The postoperative NRS scores at day 1 were also similar. There were 3 complications (2%) in the SSIB group and 172 complications (10%) in the CIB group. Ten patients in the CIB group required emergency department (ED) visits secondary to block complications compared with no ED visits in the SSIB group. CONCLUSION: In 1888 consecutive patients, SSIB and CIB provided similar pain relief following shoulder surgery. However, patients who received CIB had significantly more complications and ED visits than patients who received SSIB. The potential benefits of longer pain relief may not outweigh the risks of CIB vs. SSIB in common shoulder procedures.