Hombro/Shoulder: tenodesis para revisar la lesión SLAP

The Efficacy of Biceps Tenodesis in the Treatment of Failed Superior Labral Anterior Posterior Repairs.

Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb 11

McCormick F1, Nwachukwu B, Solomon D, Dewing C, Golijanin P, Gross DJ, Provencher MT.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:The incidence and arthroscopic treatment of superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) tears have increased over the past decade. Recent evidence has identified factors associated with poor outcomes, including age, overhead activity, and concomitant rotator cuff tears. Biceps tenodesis has also been suggested as an alternative treatment to repair. Moreover, there are no studies demonstrating effective treatment strategies for failed type II SLAP repairs.

PURPOSE:To prospectively evaluate the surgical outcomes of biceps tenodesis for patients who undergo elected revision surgery after an arthroscopically repaired type II SLAP tear. 

STUDY DESIGN:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS:After institutional review board approval, 46 patients who met failure criteria for an arthroscopically repaired type II SLAP tear elected to undergo open subpectoral tenodesis by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons from 2006 to 2010 at a tertiary care military treatment facility. Objective outcomes were preoperative and postoperative assessments with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) scores and an independent physical examination. Statistical analysis was performed via analysis of variance.

RESULTS:Of the 46 patients, 42 completed the study (91% follow-up rate). The mean age of the patients was 39.2 years, 85% were male, and the mean follow-up period was 3.5 years (range, 2.0-6.0 years). The rate of return to active duty and sports was 81%. There was a clinically and statistically significant improvement across all outcome assessments after revision surgery (preoperative mean scores: ASES = 68, SANE = 64, WOSI = 65; postoperative mean scores: ASES = 89, SANE = 84, WOSI = 81) (P < .0001) and shoulder range of motion (preoperative mean values: forward flexion = 135°, abduction = 125°; postoperative mean values: forward flexion = 155°, abduction = 155°) (P < .0001). There was 1 case of transient musculocutaneous nerve neurapraxia.

CONCLUSION:Biceps tenodesis is a predictable, safe, and effective treatment for failed arthroscopic SLAP tears at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The majority of patients obtained good to excellent outcomes using validated measures with a significant improvement in range of motion.

Hombro/Shoulder: tenodesis con o sin hardware

Ultrasound and clinical evaluation of soft-tissue versus hardware biceps tenodesis: is hardware tenodesis worth the cost?

Authors: Elkousy H Romero JA Edwards TB Gartsman GM O'Connor DP

Source: Am J. Orthop. 2014 Feb; 43(2):62-5.

INTRODUCTION

This study assesses the failure rate of soft-tissue versus hardware fixation of biceps tenodesis by ultrasound to determine if the expense of a hardware tenodesis technique is warranted. 

METHODS

Seventy-two patients that underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis over a 3-year period were evaluated using postoperative ultrasonography and clinical examination. The tenodesis technique employed was either a soft-tissue technique with sutures or an interference screw technique using hardware based on surgeon preference. 

RESULTS

Patient age was 57.9 years on average with ultrasound and clinical examination done at an average of 9.3 months postoperatively. Thirty-one patients had a hardware technique and 41 a soft-tissue technique. Overall, 67.7% of biceps tenodesis done with hardware were intact, compared with 75.6% for the soft-tissue technique by ultrasound (P = .46). Clinical evaluation indicated that 80.7% of hardware techniques and 78% of soft-tissue techniques were intact. Average material cost to the hospital for the hardware technique was $514.32, compared with $32.05 for the soft-tissue technique. 

CONCLUSION

Biceps tenodesis success, as determined by clinical deformity and ultrasound, was not improved using hardware as compared to soft-tissue techniques. Soft-tissue techniques are equally efficacious and more cost effective than hardware techniques.