Amanda J Schroeder1, Yehia H Bedeir2, Adam P Schumaier1, Vishal S Desai1, Brian M Grawe1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.. Electronic address: yehiabedeir@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if cyst management is necessary in the setting of SLAP lesions with concomitant paralabral ganglion cysts. METHODS: We performed a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including all studies that met inclusion criteria from January 1975 to July 2015. We included patients with a SLAP II-VII lesion and a concomitant paralabral ganglion cyst who underwent arthroscopic labral repair with or without cyst decompression. Patients with follow-up of less than 3 months, a SLAP I lesion, or who underwent concomitant cuff repair were excluded. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scoring system was used to quantify the potential bias in each study. Outcome measures reported were provided in a table format and a subjective analysis was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included yielding a total of 160 patients: 66 patients treated with repair alone [R] and 94 patients with additional cyst decompression or excision [R+D]. The VAS, Rowe, and Constant scores were excellent and similar in both groups. The mean VAS was 0.6 in [R] and ranged between 0 and 2 in [R+D] (0.5, 0, 2, 0.2). The mean Rowe scores were 94 and 98 in [R] and 95 in [R+D]. The mean Constant scores were 97 in [R] and ranged between 87 and 98 in [R+D] (98, 87, 92, 94). In total, 5 of 90 patients were unable to return to work and 2 of 45 were unable to return to sport. All 15 patients who had follow-up electromyographies displayed resolution, and in the 115 patients with follow-up MRIs, 12 did not have complete resolution of the cyst. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, the studies subjectively analyzed in this review suggest that both groups have excellent results. The results do not show any advantages from performing decompression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.
PURPOSE: To determine if cyst management is necessary in the setting of SLAP lesions with concomitant paralabral ganglion cysts. METHODS: We performed a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including all studies that met inclusion criteria from January 1975 to July 2015. We included patients with a SLAP II-VII lesion and a concomitant paralabral ganglion cyst who underwent arthroscopic labral repair with or without cyst decompression. Patients with follow-up of less than 3 months, a SLAP I lesion, or who underwent concomitant cuff repair were excluded. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scoring system was used to quantify the potential bias in each study. Outcome measures reported were provided in a table format and a subjective analysis was performed. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included yielding a total of 160 patients: 66 patients treated with repair alone [R] and 94 patients with additional cyst decompression or excision [R+D]. The VAS, Rowe, and Constant scores were excellent and similar in both groups. The mean VAS was 0.6 in [R] and ranged between 0 and 2 in [R+D] (0.5, 0, 2, 0.2). The mean Rowe scores were 94 and 98 in [R] and 95 in [R+D]. The mean Constant scores were 97 in [R] and ranged between 87 and 98 in [R+D] (98, 87, 92, 94). In total, 5 of 90 patients were unable to return to work and 2 of 45 were unable to return to sport. All 15 patients who had follow-up electromyographies displayed resolution, and in the 115 patients with follow-up MRIs, 12 did not have complete resolution of the cyst. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, the studies subjectively analyzed in this review suggest that both groups have excellent results. The results do not show any advantages from performing decompression. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.