Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes

PURPOSE: To determine whether an association exists between the presence of cervical spine pathology and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing isolated BT from August 2011 t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Akpinar, Berkcan, Vasavada, Kinjal, Colasanti, Christopher A., Alaia, Michael J., Strauss, Eric J., Jazrawi, Laith M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9402417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36033189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.007
_version_ 1784773171739623424
author Akpinar, Berkcan
Vasavada, Kinjal
Colasanti, Christopher A.
Alaia, Michael J.
Strauss, Eric J.
Jazrawi, Laith M.
author_facet Akpinar, Berkcan
Vasavada, Kinjal
Colasanti, Christopher A.
Alaia, Michael J.
Strauss, Eric J.
Jazrawi, Laith M.
author_sort Akpinar, Berkcan
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To determine whether an association exists between the presence of cervical spine pathology and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing isolated BT from August 2011 to May 2019 was conducted. Cases were defined as patients with concomitant cervical spine disease (disc disease, disc herniations, neuroforaminal/central stenosis). Controls were patients without cervical spine disease. Postoperative PROs were collected from all patients with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Cases and controls were matched 1:1 using age and body mass index. PROs were compared using the χ(2) text, Fisher exact test, or analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 23 cases and 23 controls were identified. Cases and controls had similar distributions of age (42.4 ± 4.4 years, 40.4 ± 4.5, P = .15), sex (83% male, 87% male, P = .68), body mass index (28.0 ± 4.0, 27.6 ± 4.3, P = .78), and percentage of athletes (65% athlete, 61% athlete. P = .76). All cases had evidence of neuroforaminal stenosis and multilevel degenerative disc disease, whereas 19 of 23 (83%) had evidence of central canal stenosis. Cases had a greater visual analog scale (VAS) score during Sport score (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 1.2 ± 0.6, P = .013) and lower Subjective Shoulder Value (69.5 ± 5.8 vs 84.1 ± 5.4, P = .070) and Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score (60.4 ± 5.8 vs 77.4 ± 6.0, P = .046). There were no significant differences between groups’ ASES, baseline VAS, overall satisfaction scores, and willingness to undergo the same operation again. No significant differences were found in postoperative rate of return to sport, time to return, and return to preoperative competitiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SLAP tears undergoing isolated BT in the presence of cervical spinal stenosis may have inferior Subjective Shoulder Value, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury, and VAS during sport scores as compared with controls, although many PROs were similar at follow-up. Athletes undergoing BT, particularly with concomitant cervical spine pathology, should be counseled appropriately before surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case–control study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9402417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94024172022-08-26 Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes Akpinar, Berkcan Vasavada, Kinjal Colasanti, Christopher A. Alaia, Michael J. Strauss, Eric J. Jazrawi, Laith M. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To determine whether an association exists between the presence of cervical spine pathology and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing isolated BT from August 2011 to May 2019 was conducted. Cases were defined as patients with concomitant cervical spine disease (disc disease, disc herniations, neuroforaminal/central stenosis). Controls were patients without cervical spine disease. Postoperative PROs were collected from all patients with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Cases and controls were matched 1:1 using age and body mass index. PROs were compared using the χ(2) text, Fisher exact test, or analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 23 cases and 23 controls were identified. Cases and controls had similar distributions of age (42.4 ± 4.4 years, 40.4 ± 4.5, P = .15), sex (83% male, 87% male, P = .68), body mass index (28.0 ± 4.0, 27.6 ± 4.3, P = .78), and percentage of athletes (65% athlete, 61% athlete. P = .76). All cases had evidence of neuroforaminal stenosis and multilevel degenerative disc disease, whereas 19 of 23 (83%) had evidence of central canal stenosis. Cases had a greater visual analog scale (VAS) score during Sport score (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 1.2 ± 0.6, P = .013) and lower Subjective Shoulder Value (69.5 ± 5.8 vs 84.1 ± 5.4, P = .070) and Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score (60.4 ± 5.8 vs 77.4 ± 6.0, P = .046). There were no significant differences between groups’ ASES, baseline VAS, overall satisfaction scores, and willingness to undergo the same operation again. No significant differences were found in postoperative rate of return to sport, time to return, and return to preoperative competitiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SLAP tears undergoing isolated BT in the presence of cervical spinal stenosis may have inferior Subjective Shoulder Value, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury, and VAS during sport scores as compared with controls, although many PROs were similar at follow-up. Athletes undergoing BT, particularly with concomitant cervical spine pathology, should be counseled appropriately before surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case–control study. Elsevier 2022-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9402417/ /pubmed/36033189 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.007 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Akpinar, Berkcan
Vasavada, Kinjal
Colasanti, Christopher A.
Alaia, Michael J.
Strauss, Eric J.
Jazrawi, Laith M.
Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title_full Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title_fullStr Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title_short Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes
title_sort concomitant cervical spine stenosis negatively affects subpectoral biceps tenodesis outcomes
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9402417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36033189
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.007
work_keys_str_mv AT akpinarberkcan concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes
AT vasavadakinjal concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes
AT colasantichristophera concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes
AT alaiamichaelj concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes
AT straussericj concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes
AT jazrawilaithm concomitantcervicalspinestenosisnegativelyaffectssubpectoralbicepstenodesisoutcomes