Long-term Results After SLAP Repair: A 5-Year Follow-up Study of 107 Patients With Comparison of Patients Aged Over and Under 40 Years.
PURPOSE: The aims of this prospective cohort study were to assess the long-term results after isolated superior labral repair and to determine whether the results were associated with age. METHODS: One hundred seven patients underwent repair of isolated SLAP tears. There were 36 women and 71 men with a mean age of 43.8 years (range, 20 to 68 years). Mean follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 4 to 8 years). Of the patients, 62 (57.9%) were aged 40 years or older. Follow-up examinations were performed by an independent examiner; 102 patients (95.3%) had a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: The Rowe score improved from 62.8 (SD, 11.4) preoperatively to 92.1 (SD, 13.5) at follow-up (P < .001). Satisfaction was rated excellent/good for 90 patients (88%) at 5 years. There was no significant difference in the results for patients aged 40 years or older and those aged under 40 years. Difficulty with postoperative stiffness and pain was reported by 14 patients (13.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that long-term outcomes after isolated labral repair for SLAP lesions are good and independent of age. Postoperative stiffness was registered in 13.1% of the patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
Available from: Øystein Skare
- "In a 5-year follow-up study of arthroscopic repair in patients with SLAP lesions , the clinical Rowe Score (1988 version) was used as the main effect variable. This score has been reported to have considerable limitations  and results  would have been strengthened applying a self-report outcome with acceptable measurement properties. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Having an estimate of the measurement error of self-report questionnaires is important both for assessing follow-up results after treatment and when planning intervention studies. Specific questionnaires have been evaluated for patients with shoulder instability, but not in particular for patients with SLAP (superior labral anterior posterior) lesions or recurrent dislocations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement, reliability, and validity of two commonly questionnaires developed for patients with shoulder instability and a generic questionnaire in patients with SLAP lesions or recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations.
Seventy-one patients were included, 33 had recurrent anterior dislocations and 38 had a SLAP lesion. The patients filled in the questionnaires twice at the same time of the day (+/- 2 hours) with a one week interval between administrations. We tested the Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS) (range 12 to 60), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (0 to 2100), and the EuroQol: EQ-5D (-0.5 to 1.0) and EQ-VAS (0 to 100). Hypotheses were defined to test validity.
ICC ranged from 0.89 (95 % CI 0.83 to 0.93) to 0.92 (0.87 to 0.95) for OISS, WOSI, and EQ-VAS and was 0.66 (0.50 to 0.77) for EQ-5D. The limits of agreement for the scores were: -7.8 to 8.4 for OISS; -339.9 to 344.8 for WOSI; -0.4 to 0.4 for EQ-5D; and -17.2 and 16.2 for EQ-VAS. All questionnaires reflect the construct that was measured. The correlation between WOSI and OISS was 0.73 and ranged from 0.49 to 0.54 between the shoulder questionnaires and the generic questionnaires. The divergent validity was acceptable, convergent validity failed, and known group validity was acceptable only for OISS.
Measurement errors and limitations in validity should be considered when change scores of OISS and WOSI are interpreted in patients with SLAP lesions or recurrent shoulder dislocations. EQ-5D is not recommended as a single outcome.
BMC Research Notes 07/2013; 6(1):273. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-6-273
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 11/2012; 28(11):1581-3. DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.001 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Available from: Brian Christopher Werner
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Outcomes of arthroscopic superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repairs have been well reported with generally favorable outcomes. Unfortunately, a percentage of patients remain dissatisfied or suffer further injury after SLAP repair and may seek additional treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of biceps tenodesis for failed SLAP repairs.
A retrospective review of all patients undergoing biceps tenodesis was completed. Inclusion criteria were previous SLAP repair and subsequent revision biceps tenodesis. Exclusion criteria were additional shoulder procedures including rotator cuff repair, instability procedures, and preoperative frozen shoulder. Objective outcomes were postoperative assessments with Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Simple Shoulder Test, and Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey. Physical examination was conducted to determine postoperative range of motion and strength compared with the nonoperative shoulder.
A cohort of 24 patients was identified, and of these, 17 patients (71%) completed the study at 2 years' follow-up. The average postoperative Constant score was 84.4; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 75.5; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, 73.1%; Simple Shoulder Test score, 9.2; and Veterans RAND 36-Item Health Survey score, 76.1. Postoperative range of motion of the operative shoulder returned to near that of the asymptomatic nonoperative shoulder. Workers' compensation status led to inferior results.
Options for patients with a failed prior SLAP repair are limited. As a salvage operation for failed SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis serves the majority of patients well, with favorable outcomes by validated measures and excellent shoulder range of motion and elbow strength at 2 years' follow-up. Workers' compensation status may predispose patients to poorer outcomes.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.020 · 2.29 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.