Surgical management of superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears remains controversial. Current management utilizes 2 well-established procedures: biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair. This study evaluates the complications associated with arthroscopic SLAP repair vs. an open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis to further elucidate optimal surgical management. In this retrospective cohort study, the TriNetX database was utilized to evaluate patients who underwent repair of SLAP lesions (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code: S43.43) from May 15, 2003, to May 15, 2023. Three patient cohorts were evaluated: those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code: 29807), those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT code: 29828), and those who underwent open tenodesis of the biceps (CPT code: 23430). Cohorts were propensity matched for type 2 diabetes, nicotine dependence, alcohol-related disorders, body mass index, and demographic factors such as age at event, ethnicity, race, and sex. The outcomes evaluated were disruption of surgical wound, deep vein thrombosis, mononeuropathy of upper limb, shoulder contusion, humeral fracture, sepsis, deceased, acute postoperative pain, revision, shoulder stiffness, and rotator cuff strain. All outcomes were evaluated within 1 year postprocedure. A total of 11,081 arthroscopic SLAP repairs, 9960 arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, and 9420 open biceps tenodesis were matched. Compared with patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair were 1.8 times more likely to undergo revision (2.9% vs. 1.6%, P < .0001). Compared with those who underwent open biceps tenodesis, patients who had SLAP repair performed were 1.4 times more likely to undergo revision (3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = .013) and 1.6 times more likely to have a subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P = .0002). Compared with patients who underwent SLAP repair, those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.3 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (5.2% vs. 4.0%, P = .011). Similarly, open biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.8 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (6.9% vs. 3.8%, P < .0001) and 1.3 times more shoulder stiffness (11.8% vs. 9.0%, P < .0001). In the last 20 years, patients who underwent SLAP repair were associated with higher risk of revision surgery and subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis. Conversely, patients who underwent biceps tenodesis were associated with higher rates of acute postoperative pain and shoulder stiffness.
Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.
Surgical management of superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears remains controversial. Current management utilizes 2 well-established procedures: biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair. This study evaluates the complications associated with arthroscopic SLAP repair vs. an open or arthroscopic biceps tenodesis to further elucidate optimal surgical management. In this retrospective cohort study, the TriNetX database was utilized to evaluate patients who underwent repair of SLAP lesions (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code: S43.43) from May 15, 2003, to May 15, 2023. Three patient cohorts were evaluated: those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code: 29807), those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT code: 29828), and those who underwent open tenodesis of the biceps (CPT code: 23430). Cohorts were propensity matched for type 2 diabetes, nicotine dependence, alcohol-related disorders, body mass index, and demographic factors such as age at event, ethnicity, race, and sex. The outcomes evaluated were disruption of surgical wound, deep vein thrombosis, mononeuropathy of upper limb, shoulder contusion, humeral fracture, sepsis, deceased, acute postoperative pain, revision, shoulder stiffness, and rotator cuff strain. All outcomes were evaluated within 1 year postprocedure. A total of 11,081 arthroscopic SLAP repairs, 9960 arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, and 9420 open biceps tenodesis were matched. Compared with patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, those who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair were 1.8 times more likely to undergo revision (2.9% vs. 1.6%, P < .0001). Compared with those who underwent open biceps tenodesis, patients who had SLAP repair performed were 1.4 times more likely to undergo revision (3.1% vs. 2.3%, P = .013) and 1.6 times more likely to have a subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P = .0002). Compared with patients who underwent SLAP repair, those who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.3 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (5.2% vs. 4.0%, P = .011). Similarly, open biceps tenodesis exhibited 1.8 times more instances of acute postoperative pain (6.9% vs. 3.8%, P < .0001) and 1.3 times more shoulder stiffness (11.8% vs. 9.0%, P < .0001). In the last 20 years, patients who underwent SLAP repair were associated with higher risk of revision surgery and subsequent rotator cuff strain diagnosis. Conversely, patients who underwent biceps tenodesis were associated with higher rates of acute postoperative pain and shoulder stiffness.
Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.