Matthew W DeFazio1,2, Sezai Özkan3,4, Eric R Wagner5, Jon J P Warner5, Neal C Chen3. 1. Hand and Arm Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. mwdefazio@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. mwdefazio@mgh.harvard.edu. 3. Hand and Arm Center, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Trauma Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Harvard Shoulder Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is discrepancy in the reported reoperation rate and factors associated with reoperation after type II SLAP repair. The aim was to determine the incidence and factors associated with unplanned reoperation and repair failure after type II SLAP repair. METHODS: Five-hundred and thiry-nine patients with SLAP repairs were identified from 2005 to 2016. Patient characteristics were recorded and subgroup analyses performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with unplanned reoperation and SLAP repair failure. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 539 patients (12%) had unplanned reoperation after SLAP repair. Additional procedures during SLAP repair were associated with fewer unplanned reoperations (OR 0.57; P = 0.046). Age < 40 was associated with unplanned reoperation (55% vs 40%; P = 0.032), but this was not an independent association. Forty-five of 539 patients (8.3%) had SLAP repair failure (defined by repeat SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis/tenotomy). Smoking (OR 3.1; P = 0.004) and knotless suture anchors (OR 3.4; P = 0.007) were associated with SLAP repair failure. Isolated SLAP repair was associated with SLAP repair failure (64% vs 46%; P = 0.020), but this was not an independent association. In those who did not have an isolated SLAP repair, knotless suture anchors (19% vs 3.4%; P = 0.024) were associated with repair failure. CONCLUSION: After type II SLAP repair, roughly 1 in 10 patients may undergo reoperation. Isolated SLAP repair is independently associated with unplanned reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: There is discrepancy in the reported reoperation rate and factors associated with reoperation after type II SLAP repair. The aim was to determine the incidence and factors associated with unplanned reoperation and repair failure after type II SLAP repair. METHODS: Five-hundred and thiry-nine patients with SLAP repairs were identified from 2005 to 2016. Patient characteristics were recorded and subgroup analyses performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with unplanned reoperation and SLAP repair failure. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 539 patients (12%) had unplanned reoperation after SLAP repair. Additional procedures during SLAP repair were associated with fewer unplanned reoperations (OR 0.57; P = 0.046). Age < 40 was associated with unplanned reoperation (55% vs 40%; P = 0.032), but this was not an independent association. Forty-five of 539 patients (8.3%) had SLAP repair failure (defined by repeat SLAP repair or biceps tenodesis/tenotomy). Smoking (OR 3.1; P = 0.004) and knotless suture anchors (OR 3.4; P = 0.007) were associated with SLAP repair failure. Isolated SLAP repair was associated with SLAP repair failure (64% vs 46%; P = 0.020), but this was not an independent association. In those who did not have an isolated SLAP repair, knotless suture anchors (19% vs 3.4%; P = 0.024) were associated with repair failure. CONCLUSION: After type II SLAP repair, roughly 1 in 10 patients may undergo reoperation. Isolated SLAP repair is independently associated with unplanned reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.