scholarly journals Arthroscopic Repair of Batter’s Shoulder

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 263502542110218
Author(s):  
Austin G. Cross ◽  
Brian H. Goldman ◽  
Eric C. Makhni

Background: Batter’s shoulder is a condition in which the posterior labrum is typically torn during the baseball swinging motion, producing a traumatic tear and posterior instability. The injury commonly occurs in the batter’s lead shoulder due to repetitive microtrauma, raising concern for switch-hitters due to the cumulative stress of throwing and swinging on the lead shoulder. Instability is commonly caused by a posterior humeral force and relative shoulder adduction, which is most prevalent during a swing attempt at a low and outside pitch. Indications: Damage to the labrum during the acute traumatic event can cause residual pain and recurrent instability of the shoulder. Indications include failed conservative management. The patient demonstrated a full-thickness longitudinal tear that was grossly unstable with gentle probing. Technique Description: After establishing presence of an unstable posterior labral tear during diagnostic arthroscopy, a 7-o’clock portal is established for the labral repair. A knotless suture anchor construct was utilized for its low-profile features. Care is taken to avoid both tangling of sutures and overtensioning of the repair. Results: Patients return to live batting practice at 6 months postoperatively and most patients return to the same level of play following surgical management. Discussion/Conclusion: Avoid overtightening of labral repair and subsequent loss of range of motion. Use of a low-profile knotless suture anchor is the senior author’s preferred method of surgical management. A majority of patients surgically managed for unstable posterior labral injuries return to the same level of play.

Author(s):  
Patrick D. Rowan ◽  
James L. Cook ◽  
Will A. Bezold ◽  
Nathan W. Skelley

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to analyze relevant initial-implantation biomechanical properties of five knotless suture anchors available for use in acetabular labral repair. Five knotless suture anchor constructs were tested: Arthrex PushLock 2.9, Arthrex PushLock 2.4, Arthrex SutureTak 3.0, Stryker CinchLock SS 2.4, and Stryker CinchLock Flex 2.4. Anchors were placed in synthetic bone blocks and in acetabular bone of cadaveric specimens. Constructs were subjected to cyclic and load-to-failure (LTF) testing. Displacement at 1, 100, 250, and 500 cycles, yield load, ultimate load, and failure mode were compared with statistically significant (p < 0.005) differences. PushLock 2.9 mm and CinchLock SS 2.4 anchor constructs had significantly less displacement than PushLock 2.4 mm after 1 cycle (p = 0.017) and 500 cycles (p = 0.043). Excluding “tare” displacement after the first cycle, all anchor constructs were associated with less than 2.0 mm of displacement after 500 cycles. Arthrex PushLock 2.4 and SutureTak 3.0 had the highest number of failures prior to completing cyclic loading. Arthrex PushLock 2.9 was associated with the highest LTF in cadaver (p = 0.00013) and synthetic (p = 0.009) bone models. Most common failure mode in cadaver bone was eyelet failure for all anchor types. Knotless suture anchors used for arthroscopic hip surgery (2.9 mm PushLock, 2.4 mm PushLock, 3.0 mm SutureTak, 2.4 mm CinchLock SS, and 2.4 mm CinchLock Flex) were associated with material properties that met or exceeded the reported thresholds for successful periarticular soft tissue repair surgeries. Based on cyclic and LTF testing in synthetic bone blocks and cadaveric acetabulums, 2.9 mm PushLocks and 2.4 mm CinchLock SS anchors may have potential biomechanical advantages over the other constructs tested. Further functional ex vivo and preclinical animal model studies are recommended to further characterize suture anchor constructs designed for acetabular labrum repair. These results provide novel and relevant biomechanical testing data that contribute to assessing knotless suture anchor constructs for use in acetabular labral repair.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. e40-e41
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Sarah L. Chen ◽  
Jeffrey Chen ◽  
Ajay C. Lall ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e325-e331
Author(s):  
Roddy McGee ◽  
Shain Howard ◽  
Daniel LeCavalier ◽  
Adam Eudy ◽  
Randa Bascharon ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 3051-3056
Author(s):  
Georges Haidamous ◽  
Matthew P. Noyes ◽  
Patrick J. Denard

Background: Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) high in the groove can be achieved using an inlay or an onlay technique. However, there is little information comparing outcomes between the 2. Purpose: To compare postoperative healing and functional outcomes of ABT high in the groove performed using either an onlay or an inlay technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing ABT at the articular margin (high in the groove) at a single center over a 2-year period. An inlay technique using an interference screw was performed during the first year, followed by an onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor during the second. Tendon healing, elbow flexion strength, functional outcome, and complications were evaluated at a postoperative minimum of 1 year. Results: A total of 37 patients with inlay and 53 with onlay ABTs were available for follow-up. There was no difference in range of motion, functional outcome scores, or elbow flexion strength between the groups. A postoperative popeye deformity was noted in 27% of patients in the inlay group as compared with 9.4% of the onlay group ( P = .028). Four patients (10.8%) in the inlay group required revision surgery (2 of which were biceps tenodesis related) as compared with 0% in the onlay group ( P = .015). Conclusion: An onlay technique using a knotless suture anchor for ABT at the top of the articular margin is an acceptable alternative to an inlay technique using an interference screw. The onlay technique was associated with lower rates of postoperative popeye deformity and revision surgery as compared with the inlay technique.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 3173-3178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Sugaya ◽  
Kazuhide Suzuki ◽  
Hideya Yoshimura ◽  
Minoru Tanaka ◽  
Tetsuya Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Sileo ◽  
Steven J. Lee ◽  
Ian J. Kremenic ◽  
Karl Orishimo ◽  
Simon Ben-Avi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document