Background:
Rotator cuff tears represent a significant cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction in the United States. The development of these injuries is associated with older patient age and higher ...levels of physical activity; however, data regarding the rate of return to work after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients older than 50 years of age who have physically strenuous jobs is inconclusive.
Purpose/Hypothesis:
The purpose of this study was to report short term outcomes and return to work rates after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in a cohort of patients aged 50 to 60 years working in manual labor jobs. It was hypothesized that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair would result in good functional outcomes for these patients and allow for return to work rates in excess of 80%.
Study Design:
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
Preoperative and final evaluations including the pain visual analog scale (VAS), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score were collected. A total of 73 patients were screened for inclusion. Nineteen patients were outside of the inclusion age range, 2 underwent exclusionary concomitant procedures, and 4 patients were lost to follow up, leaving a total of 48 patients with a mean follow up of 34.02 months (range, 24-67 months) available for analysis. None of the patients were involved in a workers’ compensation claim. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if arm dominance or tear size affected surgical outcomes or return to work rates.
Results:
After arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, 43 of 48 patients (89.6%) were able to return to manual labor positions. Tears were classified using the Southern California Orthopaedic Institute Classification at the time of repair as massive (C4) in 9 patients (18.75%), large (C3) in 13 patients (27.08%), medium (C2) in 21 patients (43.75%), and small (C1) in 5 patients (10.42%). At latest follow up, the mean VAS decreased from 8.0 ± 1.81 to 0.46 ± 1.20, the average SANE increased from 47.50 ± 18.59 to 91.88 ± 12.30, and the average ASES score improved from 39.58 ± 10.71 to 93.44 ± 11.97 (P < .0001). Outcomes did not differ between patients who underwent surgery on their dominant shoulder and those who underwent surgery on their nondominant shoulder. The overall postoperative complication rate was 8.33%.
Conclusion:
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair portended favorable outcomes and high rates of return to work in this cohort of manual laborers, with 89.6% of patients able to return to work.
Background:
Members of the military are known to experience disproportionately high rates of both glenohumeral instability and superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears when compared with ...civilian populations. Although the outcomes after simultaneous repair of Bankart and SLAP lesions have been well described, there is a paucity of literature available regarding the operative management of posterior instability with concomitant superior labral pathology.
Purpose:
To compare outcomes of combined arthroscopic posterior labral and SLAP repair with those of isolated posterior labral repair.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
All consecutive patients younger than 35 years who underwent arthroscopic posterior labral repair from January 2011 to December 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years were identified. From this cohort of eligible patients, all individuals who had undergone combined SLAP and posterior labral repair (SLAP cohort) versus posterior labral repair alone (instability cohort) were then identified. Outcome measures including the visual analog scale score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Rowe instability score, and range of motion were collected pre- and postoperatively and scores were compared between groups.
Results:
In total, 83 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty military at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up was 93.79 ± 18.06 months in the instability group and 91.24 ± 18.02 months in the SLAP group (P = .5228). Preoperative SANE and ASES scores were significantly worse in the SLAP group. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in outcome scores postoperatively (P < .0001 for all), and there were no significant differences in any outcome scores or range of motion between groups. In total, 39 patients in the instability cohort and 37 in the SLAP cohort returned to preinjury levels of work (92.86% vs 90.24%, respectively; P = .7126), and 38 instability patients and 35 SLAP patients returned to preinjury levels of sporting activity (90.48% vs 85.37%, respectively; P = .5195). Two patients in the instability group and 4 patients in the SLAP group were medically discharged from the military (4.76% vs 9.76%; P = .4326), and 2 patients in each cohort had experienced treatment failure at the final follow-up (4.76% vs 4.88%; P > .9999).
Conclusion:
Combined posterior labral and SLAP repair led to statistically and clinically significant increases in outcome scores and high rates of return to active-duty military service that did not differ significantly from the results after isolated posterior labral repair. The results of this study indicate that simultaneous repair is a viable treatment option for the management of combined lesions in active-duty military patients <35 years of age.
To report short-term outcomes following biceps tenodesis combined with arthroscopic posterior labral repair of type VIII SLAP lesions in active-duty military patients.
All consecutive patients from ...January 2012 through December 2018 who underwent biceps tenodesis combined with arthroscopic posterior labral repair of type VIII SLAP tears performed by the senior surgeon with complete outcome scores and minimum 2.5 years follow-up were identified. Exclusion criteria included concomitant glenoid microfracture, rotator cuff repair, or other capsulolabral repair. Outcome measures were completed by patients within 7 days before surgery and at latest follow-up. Biceps tenodesis performed was a mini-open, through a subpectoral approach, using a double-loaded 2.9mm suture-anchor.
Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty military at time of surgery. Average follow-up was 73.53 ± 22.37 months. Thirty-one patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference, 30 of 32 reached the substantial clinical benefit, and 31 of 32 met the patient acceptable symptomatic state, as defined for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score. Similarly, 30 of 32 patients reached the minimal clinically important difference, 29 of 32 achieved the substantial clinical benefit, and 32 of 32 met the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. There were no significant changes in forward flexion, external rotation, or internal rotation between pre- and postoperative measurements. Three patients reported postoperative complications and 1 patient progressed to further surgery. Thirty (93.75%) patients remained on active-duty military service and were able to return to preinjury levels of activity.
Active-duty military patients with type VIII SLAP tears had statistically and clinically significant increases in outcome scores, marked improvement in pain, and high rates of return to unrestricted active-duty following mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis combined with posterior labral repair.
IV, retrospective case series.
Underpotential deposition (upd) of copper has been used to characterize platinum, ruthenium, and platinum−ruthenium high-surface-area unsupported (powder black) electrocatalysts. The surface areas ...thus obtained compare favorably with those determined by the more conventional electrochemical methods of monolayer CO and hydrogen oxidation. The differing adsorption energies for Cu on either Pt or Ru allow the peaks for upd copper deposited on alloy Pt−Ru to be resolved into their constituent components. Thus, in addition to the surface area, the surface composition of the Pt−Ru electrocatalyst can be determined. This approach distinguishes between bare ruthenium (i.e., metallic) and oxidized ruthenium sites as the upd copper does not deposit on the latter. The ruthenium surface area is found to remain high up to 0.45 V (vs RHE) and then to fall linearly with potential. Polarization at high potentials 1.45 V (vs RHE) leaves a material in which metallic ruthenium cannot be recovered by electrochemical reduction. This is caused by oxidation of the ruthenium to a state that either dissolves in the aqueous phase and is lost or produces a form of oxidized ruthenium that is in a state that cannot be electrochemically reduced.
Background:
Posterior glenohumeral instability is an increasingly recognized cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction among young, active populations. Outcomes after posterior stabilization procedures ...are commonly assessed using patient-reported outcome measures including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the Rowe instability score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The clinical significance thresholds for these measures after arthroscopic posterior labral repair (aPLR), however, remain undefined.
Purpose:
We aimed to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the SANE, Rowe score, and ASES score as well as the VAS pain after aPLR. Additionally, we sought to determine preoperative factors predictive of reaching, as well as failing to reach, clinical significance.
Study Design:
Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
This study was a retrospective analysis of patient-reported outcome scores collected from patients who underwent aPLR between January 2011 and December 2018. To determine the clinically significant threshold that corresponded to achieving a meaningful outcome, the MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for the SANE, Rowe score, ASES score, and VAS pain utilizing either an anchor- or distribution-based method. Additionally, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with achieving, or not achieving, the MCID, SCB, and PASS.
Results:
A total of 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 82.55 ± 24.20 months were available for final analysis. MCID, SCB, and PASS values for the VAS pain were 1.10, 6, and 3, respectively; for the ASES score were 7.8, 34, and 80, respectively; for the SANE were 10.15, 33, and 85, respectively; and for the Rowe score were 11.3, 60, and 90, respectively. To meet the MCID, male sex (odds ratio OR, 1.1639; P = .0293) was found to be a positive predictor for the VAS pain, and a lower preoperative SANE score (OR, 0.9939; P = .0003) was found to be a negative predictor for the SANE. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving the PASS for the ASES score (OR, 0.7834; P = .0259) and VAS pain (OR, 0.7887; P = .0436). Patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma were more likely to reach the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3501; P = .0089), Rowe score (OR, 1.3938; P = .0052), and VAS pain (OR, 1.3507; P = .0104) as well as the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.2642; P = .0469) and SANE (OR, 1.2554; P = .0444). A higher preoperative VAS pain score was associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for both the VAS pain (OR, 1.1653; P = .0110) and Rowe score (OR, 1.1282; P = .0175). Lastly, concomitant biceps tenodesis was associated with greater odds of achieving the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.3490; P = .0130) and reaching the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3825; P = .0038) and Rowe score (OR, 1.4040; P = .0035).
Conclusion:
To our knowledge, this study is the first to define the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the ASES score, Rowe score, SANE, and VAS pain in patients undergoing aPLR. Furthermore, we found that patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma and those who underwent concomitant biceps tenodesis demonstrated a greater likelihood of achieving clinical significance. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving clinical significance.
Background:
In recent years, the placement of a subacromial balloon (SAB) spacer has emerged as a treatment option for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs); however, there is significant ...controversy regarding its utility in comparison with other surgical interventions.
Purpose:
To compare outcomes after SAB spacer placement versus arthroscopic debridement for MIRCTs.
Study Design:
Dual-armed systematic review and meta-analysis (level IV evidence).
Methods:
A literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and CINAHL Complete databases for articles published before May 7, 2022, was conducted to identify patients with MIRCTs undergoing the 2 procedures. For the SAB arm, 14 of 449 studies were considered eligible for inclusion, while 14 of 272 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the debridement arm.
Results:
In total, 528 patients were eligible for inclusion in the SAB arm and 479 patients in the debridement arm, and 69.9% of patients undergoing SAB placement also underwent concomitant debridement. Decreases in the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score and increases in the Constant score were found to be significantly larger after debridement (–0.7 points P < .001 and +5.5 points P < .001, respectively), although the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the VAS was not achieved after either procedure. Both SAB placement and debridement significantly improved range of motion in forward flexion/forward elevation, internal and external rotation, and abduction (P < .001). Rates of general complication were higher after debridement versus SAB placement (5.2% ± 5.6% vs 3.5% ± 6.3%, respectively; P < .001); however, there were no significant differences between SAB placement and debridement in rates of persistent symptoms requiring a reintervention (3.3% ± 6.2% vs 3.8% ± 7.3%, respectively; P = .252) or reoperation rates (5.1% ± 7.6% vs 4.8% ± 8.4%, respectively; P = .552). The mean time to conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was 11.0 versus 25.4 months, respectively, for the SAB versus debridement arm.
Conclusion:
While SAB placement was associated with acceptable postoperative outcomes in the treatment of MIRCTs, there was no clear benefit over debridement alone. Shorter operative times coupled with better postoperative outcomes and longer times to conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty rendered debridement a more attractive option. While there may be a role for SAB placement in poor surgical candidates, there is burgeoning evidence to support debridement alone without SAB placement for the treatment of MIRCTs.
Background:
Biceps tenodesis has been suggested as a superior surgical technique compared with isolated labral repair for superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears in patients older than 35 ...years. The superiority of this procedure in younger patients, however, is yet to be determined.
Purpose:
To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic SLAP repair with those of arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis for type II SLAP tears in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Preoperative and postoperative evaluations with a minimum 5-year follow-up including the visual analog scale (VAS), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score were administered, and scores were compared between 2 groups of patients younger than 35 years. One group included 25 patients who underwent SLAP repair, and the second group included 23 patients who underwent arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis.
Results:
The preoperative patient age (P = .3639), forward flexion (P = .8214), external rotation (P = .5134), VAS pain score (P = .4487), SANE score (P = .6614), and ASES score (P = .6519) did not vary significantly between the 2 study groups. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in function as measured by the ASES and SANE and decreases in pain as measured by the VAS at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Also at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively, patients in the tenodesis group had lower pain (1.3 vs 2.6, respectively; P = .0358) and higher SANE (84.0 vs 63.3, respectively; P = .0001) and ASES (85.7 vs 75.4, respectively; P = .0342) scores compared with those in the repair group. Failure rate was 20.0% in the repair group versus 0.0% in the tenodesis group (P = .0234).
Conclusion:
Active-duty military patients younger than 35 years with type II SLAP tears had more predictable improvement in pain, better functional outcomes, and lower failure rates after biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair for type II SLAP tears. Overall, the results of this study indicate that arthroscopic- assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis is superior to arthroscopic SLAP repair for the treatment of type II SLAP tears in military patients younger than 35 years.
Background:
Military patients are known to suffer disproportionately high rates of glenohumeral instability as well as superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears. Additionally, a concomitant ...SLAP tear is frequently observed in patients with anterior shoulder instability. Even though biceps tenodesis has been demonstrated to produce superior outcomes to SLAP repair in military patients with isolated SLAP lesions, no existing studies have reported on outcomes after simultaneous tenodesis and anterior labral repair in patients with co-existing abnormalities.
Purpose:
To evaluate outcomes after simultaneous arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair in military patients younger than 40 years. We also sought to compare these outcomes with those after repair of an isolated anterior labral tear.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
This study is a retrospective analysis of all military patients younger than 40 years from a single base who underwent arthroscopic anterior glenohumeral stabilization with or without concomitant biceps tenodesis between January 2010 and December 2019. Patients with glenoid bone loss of >13.5% were not eligible for inclusion. Outcome measures including the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, the Rowe instability score, and range of motion were administered preoperatively and postoperatively, and scores were compared between groups.
Results:
A total of 82 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty service members at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up was 87.75 ± 27.05 months in the repair + tenodesis group and 94.07 ± 28.72 months in the isolated repair group (P = .3085). Patients who underwent repair + tenodesis had significantly worse preoperative VAS pain (6.85 ± 1.86 vs 5.02 ± 2.07, respectively; P < .001), ASES (51.78 ± 11.89 vs 62.43 ± 12.35, respectively; P = .0002), and Rowe (26.75 ± 7.81 vs 37.26 ± 14.91, respectively; P = .0002) scores than patients who underwent isolated repair. Both groups experienced significant improvements in outcome scores postoperatively (P < .0001 for all), and there were no statistically significant differences in postoperative outcome scores or range of motion between groups. There were no differences in the percentage of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state for the VAS pain, SANE, ASES, and Rowe scores between groups. Overall, 37 of the 40 (92.50%) patients in the repair + tenodesis group and 40 of the 42 (95.24%) patients in the isolated repair group returned to unrestricted active-duty military service (P = .6045). In addition, 38 (95.00%) patients in the repair + tenodesis group and 40 (95.24%) patients in the isolated repair group returned to preinjury levels of sporting activity (P = .9600). There were no significant differences in the number of failures, revision surgical procedures, or patients discharged from the military between groups (P = .9421, P = .9400, and P = .6045, respectively).
Conclusion:
The findings of this study indicate that simultaneous biceps tenodesis and labral repair was a viable treatment option for the management of concomitant SLAP and anterior labral lesions in young, active military patients younger than 40 years.
Background:
Superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions and anterior instability are common causes of shoulder pain and dysfunction among active-duty members of the United States military. ...However, little data have been published regarding the surgical management of type V SLAP lesions.
Purpose:
To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair with those of arthroscopic SLAP repair (defined as contiguous repair spanning from the superior labrum to the anteroinferior labrum) for type V SLAP tears in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
All consecutive patients from January 2010 to December 2015 who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair or combined biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair for a type V SLAP lesion with a minimum 5-year follow-up were identified. The decision to perform type V SLAP repair versus combined biceps tenodesis and anterior labral repair was based on the condition of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). Labral repair was performed in patients who had a type V SLAP tear with an otherwise clinically and anatomically healthy LHBT. Combined tenodesis and repair was performed in patients with evidence of LHBT abnormalities. Outcomes including the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, the Rowe instability score, and range of motion were collected preoperatively and postoperatively, and scores were compared between the groups.
Results:
A total of 84 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. All patients were active-duty service members at the time of surgery. A total of 44 patients underwent arthroscopic type V SLAP repair, and 40 patients underwent anterior labral repair with biceps tenodesis. The mean follow-up was 102.59 ± 20.98 months in the repair group and 94.50 ± 27.11 months in the tenodesis group (P = .1281). There were no significant differences in preoperative range of motion or outcome scores between the groups. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in outcome scores postoperatively (P < .0001 for all); however, compared with the repair group, the tenodesis group reported significantly better postoperative VAS (2.52 ± 2.36 vs 1.50 ± 1.91, respectively; P = .0328), SANE (86.82 ± 11.00 vs 93.43 ± 8.81, respectively; P = .0034), and ASES (83.32 ± 15.31 vs 89.90 ± 13.31, respectively; P = .0394) scores. There were no differences in the percentage of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state for the SANE and ASES between the groups. Overall, 34 patients in each group returned to preinjury levels of work (77.3% vs 85.0%, respectively; P = .3677), and 32 patients (72.7%) in the repair group and 33 patients (82.5%) in the tenodesis group returned to preinjury levels of sporting activity (P = .2850). There were no significant differences in the number of failures, revision surgical procedures, or patients discharged from the military between the groups (P = .0923, P = .1602, and P = .2919, respectively).
Conclusion:
Both arthroscopic-assisted subpectoral biceps tenodesis combined with anterior labral repair and arthroscopic SLAP repair led to statistically and clinically significant increases in outcome scores, marked improvements in pain, and high rates of return to unrestricted active duty in military patients with type V SLAP lesions. The results of this study suggest that biceps tenodesis combined with anterior labral repair produces comparable outcomes to arthroscopic type V SLAP repair in active-duty military patients younger than 35 years.
