Y Reinig1,2, F Welsch1, R Hoffmann1, D Müller1,3, K F Schüttler4, E Zimmermann5, Thomas Stein6,7. 1. Department of Sports Orthopedics, Knee- and Shoulder-Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 2. Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Rheumatology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 5. Department of Sports Medicine, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. 6. Department of Sports Orthopedics, Knee- and Shoulder-Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. dr.thomas.stein@me.com. 7. Department of Sports Medicine, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. dr.thomas.stein@me.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic repair is one option for the surgical treatment of type II superior labrum tears from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions in athletes' shoulders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one of 78 (78.2%) athletes were retrospectively examined after isolated arthroscopic SLAP repair (group 1/G1: 28x knot-tying anchors; group 2/G2: 33 knotless anchors; follow-up 24 months) and compared to two specific, separate matched volunteer athlete control groups (group 3/G3: 28 athletes matched to G1; group 4/G4: 33 athletes matched to G2). The assessment of G1-4 included numerical analogue scales (NASs: 1-15 scales) and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) score, and the Shoulder Sport Activity Score (SSAS). The preinjury status (FU-1), the status before surgery (FU0), and at follow-up (FU1) were assessed. RESULTS: High external rotation at abduction (hER) was significantly worse in G1 than G2 (FU1: G1, 86.6° ± 7.7° versus = vs G2, 91.1° ± 10.7°; p = 0.03). The ASOSS and SSAS revealed significant impairment in G1-2 compared to G3-4 (ASOSS FU1: 83.9 ± 19.9 G1 vs 94.6 ± 7.7 G3; p = 0.002 and 80.3 ± 17.7 G2 vs 91.8 ± 9.1 G4; p = 0.002; SSAS 5.9 ± 2.7 G1 vs 6.9 ± 1.8 G3; p = 0.02 and 6.3 ± 2.5 G2 vs 7.4 ± 1.4 G4; p = 0.06), with 17-20% loss on ASOSS and 23-25% deficits on SSAS. The NAS analysis detected for pain (4 ± 3.5 vs 3.2 ± 2.6), satisfaction (2 ± 0.8 vs 1.8 ± 0.9), reduction of function (4.6 ± 3.9 vs 3.9 ± 3.8) and proficiency (9.6 ± 4.7 vs 10.9 ± 3.9) similar impairments in G1-2 (p > 0.05) and better results in G3 and G4 (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After SLAP repair, athletes showed underestimated impairment of shoulder sport resumption and proficiency with high rates of shoulder sports cessation. The present data favor the knotless fixation technique, because this fixation technique allowed bilaterally equivalent ranges of motions. The uninjured shoulder athletes also showed functional deficits with significant shoulder sport impairments, which must be considered in outcome analysis and for the rehabilitation program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic repair is one option for the surgical treatment of type II superior labrum tears from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesions in athletes' shoulders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one of 78 (78.2%) athletes were retrospectively examined after isolated arthroscopic SLAP repair (group 1/G1: 28x knot-tying anchors; group 2/G2: 33 knotless anchors; follow-up 24 months) and compared to two specific, separate matched volunteer athlete control groups (group 3/G3: 28 athletes matched to G1; group 4/G4: 33 athletes matched to G2). The assessment of G1-4 included numerical analogue scales (NASs: 1-15 scales) and the Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) score, and the Shoulder Sport Activity Score (SSAS). The preinjury status (FU-1), the status before surgery (FU0), and at follow-up (FU1) were assessed. RESULTS: High external rotation at abduction (hER) was significantly worse in G1 than G2 (FU1: G1, 86.6° ± 7.7° versus = vs G2, 91.1° ± 10.7°; p = 0.03). The ASOSS and SSAS revealed significant impairment in G1-2 compared to G3-4 (ASOSS FU1: 83.9 ± 19.9 G1 vs 94.6 ± 7.7 G3; p = 0.002 and 80.3 ± 17.7 G2 vs 91.8 ± 9.1 G4; p = 0.002; SSAS 5.9 ± 2.7 G1 vs 6.9 ± 1.8 G3; p = 0.02 and 6.3 ± 2.5 G2 vs 7.4 ± 1.4 G4; p = 0.06), with 17-20% loss on ASOSS and 23-25% deficits on SSAS. The NAS analysis detected for pain (4 ± 3.5 vs 3.2 ± 2.6), satisfaction (2 ± 0.8 vs 1.8 ± 0.9), reduction of function (4.6 ± 3.9 vs 3.9 ± 3.8) and proficiency (9.6 ± 4.7 vs 10.9 ± 3.9) similar impairments in G1-2 (p > 0.05) and better results in G3 and G4 (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After SLAP repair, athletes showed underestimated impairment of shoulder sport resumption and proficiency with high rates of shoulder sports cessation. The present data favor the knotless fixation technique, because this fixation technique allowed bilaterally equivalent ranges of motions. The uninjured shoulder athletes also showed functional deficits with significant shoulder sport impairments, which must be considered in outcome analysis and for the rehabilitation program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
Authors: Jack W Weick; Will B Workman; Christopher J Bush; Katherine A McCollum; Hiroyuki Sugaya; Michael T Freehill Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-02-23
Authors: Caellagh D Morrissey; Darby A Houck; Esther Jang; Eric C McCarty; Jonathan T Bravman; Adam J Seidl; Michelle L Wolcott; Armando F Vidal; Rachel M Frank Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-04-24