Open AccessArthroscopic Modified Double‐Row Biceps Tenodesis versus Labral Repair for the Treatment of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Non‐Overhead Athletes
Author(s) -
Song Yu,
Wu Zhong,
Wang Miao,
Liu Shengfu,
Cong Ruijun,
Tao Kun
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
orthopaedic surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1757-7861
pISSN - 1757-7853
DOI - 10.1111/os.13229
Subject(s) - medicine , biceps , surgery , labrum , patient satisfaction , elbow , osteoarthritis , visual analogue scale , arthroscopy , alternative medicine , pathology
Objective To evaluate the postoperative efficacy and the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis versus labral repair. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in 56 patients with isolated type II superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions from March 2015 to November 2018. Thirty patients (male:female = 17:13) were treated with labral repair, and 26 patients (male:female = 15:11) were treated with modified double‐row biceps tenodesis. The average age of the labral repair group and the modified double‐row biceps tenodesis group were 42.8 ± 10.6 and 40.9 ± 10.2 years, respectively. Pre‐ and postoperative assessments with the visual analog scale (VAS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Additional outcome measures included patient satisfaction, the time to return to previous activities, workers' compensation status, and postoperative complications. Results At a 2‐year follow‐up, the tenodesis group showed significant differences in postoperative VAS (1.5 to 1.8, respectively; p = 0.008), patient satisfaction (92.3% vs . 46.7%, p < 0.001), and recovery time to return to their previous activities (6.8 ± 1.8 vs . 8.1 ± 1.5, p = 0.007) compared to the labral repair group; however, there was no significant difference in postoperative ASES and UCLA scores between the two groups. Additionally, one patient in the tenodesis group developed persistent postoperative stiffness, which was resolved by conservative treatment. In the labral repair group, two patients presented with persistent postoperative night pain, three developed persistent postoperative stiffness, and two required a subsequent capsular release. Conclusions Compared with the labral repair group, the arthroscopic modified double‐row biceps tenodesis showed more encouraging postoperative pain reduction, earlier recovery to previous activities, and higher patient satisfaction.