Arthroscopic evaluation of failed primary type II SLAP lesion repair in patients with high physical activity over 40 years of age and the outcomes of tenotomy
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Medicine, Aydın, Turkey
Keywords: Physical activity, repair, shoulder arthroscopy, shoulder injuries, tenotomy
Objectives: In this study, we aimed to examine patients over 40 years of age who underwent failed primary isolated type 2 superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) repair arthroscopically and to evaluate the outcomes of tenotomy.
Patients and methods: Between March 2011 and December 2019, a total of 32 patients (19 males, 13 females; median age: 55.1 years; range, 41 to 59 years) who underwent primary repair for SLAP due to high activity levels and in whom the treatment failed were retrospectively analyzed. Biceps tenotomy was applied to all patients. The Constant-Murley Score (CMS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, and muscle strength before and after re-arthroscopy were compared.
Results: The median follow-up time was 27 (9-84) months after biceps tenotomy. During arthroscopy, failure was detected in three (9.37%) patients and additional pathologies were detected in five (15.62%) patients. Patients with biceps tenosynovitis were 29 (90.62%). The mean pre- and postoperative CMS scores were 40.5±11.1 and 86.3±8.1, respectively (p<0.001). The mean pre- and postoperative VAS-pain scores were 7.3±1.5 and 2.1±0.8, respectively (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Although the primary repair technique has been successfully performed in patients with SLAP lesions over 40 years of age and high physical activity, the clinical outcomes are unsatisfactory. Biceps tenotomy improves functional and clinical results in patients with SLAP lesions who do not benefit from primary repair.
Citation: Yıldız V, Özgezmez FT. Arthroscopic evaluation of failed primary type 2 SLAP lesion repair in patients with high physical activity over 40 years of age and the outcomes of tenotomy. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2021;32(3):i-ix.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.