Biceps tenodesis is a viable option for salvage of failed SLAP repair.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of arthroscopic superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repairs have been well reported with generally favorable outcomes. Unfortunately, a percentage of patients remain dissatisfied or suffer further injury after SLAP repair and may seek additional treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of biceps tenodesis for failed SLAP repairs. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing biceps tenodesis was completed. Inclusion criteria were previous SLAP repair and subsequent revision biceps tenodesis. Exclusion criteria were additional shoulder procedures including rotator cuff repair, instability procedures, and preoperative frozen shoulder. Objective outcomes were postoperative assessments with Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Simple Shoulder Test, and Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey. Physical examination was conducted to determine postoperative range of motion and strength compared with the nonoperative shoulder. RESULTS: A cohort of 24 patients was identified, and of these, 17 patients (71%) completed the study at 2 years' follow-up. The average postoperative Constant score was 84.4; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 75.5; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, 73.1%; Simple Shoulder Test score, 9.2; and Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey score, 76.1. Postoperative range of motion of the operative shoulder returned to near that of the asymptomatic nonoperative shoulder. Workers' compensation status led to inferior results. CONCLUSIONS: Options for patients with a failed prior SLAP repair are limited. As a salvage operation for failed SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis serves the majority of patients well, with favorable outcomes by validated measures and excellent shoulder range of motion and elbow strength at 2 years' follow-up. Workers' compensation status may predispose patients to poorer outcomes.

Superior Capsular Release After Failed Combined Superior Labral Repair And Biceps Tenodesis For Slap Tear.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal treatment of type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tears is controversial. There has been a recent trend towards biceps tenodesis over SLAP repair in older patients. Few surgeons have performed combined biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair with inferior results. CASE REPORT: This case describes a 46-year-old patient who had persistent pain and stiffness after combined biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair for a type II SLAP tear. His pain and motion improved after arthroscopic superior capsular release. CONCLUSION: Failed SLAP repair is often multifactorial and a thorough workup is needed. Combined biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair can cause pain, stiffness, and dysfunction which can be successfully treated with arthroscopic superior capsular release.

Arthroscopic Knot Removal for Failed Superior Labrum Anterior-Posterior Repair Secondary to Knot-Induced Pain.

BACKGROUND: Studies on failed superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair are increasing. However, the number of reports on treatment options for failed SLAP repair remains quite low, and the clinical results vary between different study groups. PURPOSE: To describe the clinical presentation of failed SLAP repair due to knot-induced pain and evaluate the efficacy of arthroscopic knot removal. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed records of 11 patients (mean age, 24.6 ± 8.6 years; range, 17-43 years) with stable, healed SLAP lesions with knot-induced pain after arthroscopic fixation of unstable type II SLAP lesions. All patients demonstrated a positive compression-rotation test before knot removal. The mean follow-up duration after knot removal was 48.0 ± 37.4 months (range, 24-156 months). The mean duration between primary fixation and knot removal was 21.2 ± 14.7 months (range, 8-56 months). RESULTS: Sharp pain (100%) and clicking (64%) were the most common symptoms. The knot was positioned on the glenoid side in 5 patients and the labral side in 6 patients. The knots on the glenoid side had associated humeral head cartilage damage. The mean University of California at Los Angeles score significantly improved from 15.2 points to 31.7 points after knot removal ( P = .003) Additionally, the mean Constant score greatly improved from a mean of 56.5 points to 89.8 points ( P = .003). At a mean of 3 weeks after surgery, we observed dramatic pain relief. Six weeks after surgery, the compression-rotation test was negative in all patients. CONCLUSION: The most common symptom of knot-induced pain after SLAP repair was persistent sharp pain followed by clicking. The knot appears to be a cause of pain in failed SLAP repairs, and arthroscopic knot removal can provide dramatic pain relief and significant improvement of clinical outcomes.

Risk Factors for Revision Surgery After Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Repair: A National Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding risk factors for revision surgery after superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair are limited to institutional series. PURPOSE: To define risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair among patients in a large national database. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A national insurance database was queried for patients undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29807) for the diagnosis of a SLAP tear. Patients without a CPT modifier for laterality were excluded. Revision surgery was defined as (1) subsequent ipsilateral SLAP repair (CPT 29807), (2) ipsilateral arthroscopic debridement for the diagnosis of a SLAP tear (CPT 29822 or 29823, with diagnosis code 840.7), (3) subsequent ipsilateral arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT 29828), (4) subsequent ipsilateral open biceps tenodesis (CPT 23430), and (5) subsequent biceps tenotomy (CPT 23405). Multivariable binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair, including patient demographics/comorbidities, concomitant diagnoses, and concomitant procedures performed. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were calculated. The estimated financial impact of revision surgery was also calculated. RESULTS: There were 4751 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 121 patients (2.5%) required revision surgery after SLAP repair. Regression analysis identified numerous risk factors for revision surgery, including age >40 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P = .045), female sex (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8; P = .010), obesity (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.2; P = .001), smoking (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.4; P < .0001), and diagnosis of biceps tendinitis (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.0-4.2; P < .0001) or long head of the biceps tearing (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 4.1-6.3; P < .0001) at or before the time of surgery. Concomitant rotator cuff repair and distal clavicle excision were not significant risk factors for revision surgery. The cost of revision surgery averaged almost $9000. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair include age >40 years, female sex, obesity, smoking, and diagnosis of biceps tendinitis or long head of the biceps tearing. The diagnosis of biceps tendinitis (OR, 3.5) or long head of the biceps tearing (OR, 5.1) at or before the time of surgery was an especially significant risk factor for revision surgery. The high cost of revision surgery highlights the importance of appropriate indications to avoid the need for subsequent procedures.