Rates of Subsequent Shoulder Surgery Within Three Years for Patients Undergoing SLAP Repair Versus Biceps Tenodesis

PURPOSE: To investigate the demographics of patients for whom SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis was performed, as well as to compare rates of additional shoulder surgery for these 2 procedures within 3 years postoperatively. METHODS: Using the MarketScan Commercial Database, we examined all patients with SLAP tear who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis within the encompassed time period (2003-2014). Rates of repeat shoulder surgery within 3 years were evaluated, as were comparative demographics. RESULTS: In total, 25,142 patients initially underwent SLAP repair, of whom 11.5% had subsequent shoulder surgery within 3 years. A total of 840 patients initially underwent biceps tenodesis as treatment for a SLAP tear, of whom 13.0% underwent additional shoulder surgery within 3 years. Rates of subsequent shoulder surgery between the 2 procedural groups did not statistically differ (P = .19). Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis (mean age 38.3 vs 49.3 years, P < .01). For patients requiring additional surgery, the SLAP repair group had a greater representation of those ≥35 years old, whereas the tenodesis group had a greater representation of those <35 years old (P < .01). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially undergoing tenodesis versus SLAP repair (13.3% vs 11.1%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of additional shoulder surgery for patients undergoing SLAP repair and biceps tenodesis were similar within 3 years of the index procedure. Patients who underwent SLAP repair were younger than those who underwent tenodesis. Of those requiring additional surgery, patients initially treated with SLAP repair were older (≥35 years) and those treated with tenodesis were younger (<35 years). Male patients experienced an increase in rate of subsequent shoulder surgery when initially treated with tenodesis versus SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.