Cargando…

Primary Biceps Tenodesis Is Superior to Revision Following Failed SLAP Repair

PURPOSE: To compare satisfaction and return to play (RTP) rates between patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis for a symptomatic SLAP tear and patients undergoing secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent subpectoral mi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lorentz, Nathan A., Hurley, Eoghan T., Markus, Danielle H., Colasanti, Christopher A., Campbell, Kirk A., 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/PMC9791810/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36579036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.08.006
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare satisfaction and return to play (RTP) rates between patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis for a symptomatic SLAP tear and patients undergoing secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent subpectoral mini-open biceps tenodesis following failed SLAP repair between January 2011 and October 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria included age older than 16 years, skeletal maturity, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Both athletes and nonathletes were included across all types of sport. Patients who had anterior or posterior instability or rotator cuff tears were excluded; in addition, those requiring concomitant procedures were excluded. Case–control matching was performed using age, sex, indication, follow-up, and type of sport, to generate a 3:1 control group for the primary biceps tenodesis cohort. Primary outcome measurements were collected via telephone in 2020 and included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and revisions. RTP and timing of RTP were evaluated as secondary outcomes. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The current study included 76 patients in total; 57 patients with primary biceps tenodesis, and 19 patients with secondary biceps tenodesis. The mean age was 39 years (19-48 years), 100% were male, and the mean follow-up was 54 months (16-99 months). Patient reported outcomes were obtained postoperatively via telephone survey. Overall, we found that primary biceps tenodesis patients reported greater American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (89.9 vs 76.4, P = .0162), lower visual analog scale scores (1.0 vs 3.1, P = .0034), and greater Subjective Shoulder Value scores (86.7 vs 64.7, P = .0004). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (84% vs 75%, P = .5025), or timing of RTP (8.2 months vs 8.1 months, P = .9529) between patient groups. Patients reported playing tennis, swimming, golf, rock climbing, and basketball. No patients required a further shoulder surgery after undergoing biceps tenodesis. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis had significantly better functional outcomes compared with secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.