An assessment of SLAP type 5 lesions using proton density oblique sagittal imaging in magnetic resonance arthrography

Background Bankart lesions accompany superior labrum anteroposterior (SLAP) lesions; these are called SLAP type 5. Purpose To compare SLAP type 5 lesions using routine magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) and thin-slice oblique sagittal proton density (PDW) sequences and correlation operation results. Material and Methods In total, 181 patients were admitted with shoulder instability. The study was completed with 44 patients. The presence or absence of isolated Bankart and SLAP type 5 lesions in routine MRA and PDW oblique sagittal images were evaluated separately. Absence of rupture scored 0 points, suspected ruptures scored 1 point, and apparent ruptures scored 2 points. The two scores were compared with the shoulder arthroscopy findings. Results According to the findings in the shoulder arthroscopy, 40 patients had Bankart lesions and 17 patients had accompanying SLAP type 5 lesions. To detect a Bankart lesion, there was no significant difference between routine MRA sequences and PDW oblique sagittal images ( P = 0.061). Routine MRA sensitivity was 95%, specificity 25%, positive predictive value (PPV) 92%, negative predictive value (NPV) 33%, while for PDW oblique sagittal images, sensitivity was 75%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 28.5%. In 8/17 type 5 SLAP lesions, routine MRA detected sensitivity 47%, specificity 92.6%, PPV 80%, and NPV 73.5%; in 14/17 SLAP type 5 lesions, PDW oblique sagittal images detected sensitivity 82%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 90% ( P = 0.015). Conclusion The PDW oblique sagittal images may play a significant role in assessing the anterior and superior extent of the tears.

Biceps Tenodesis Versus Superior Labral Anterior and Posterior (SLAP) Lesion Repair for the Treatment of SLAP Lesion in Overhead Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions are common injuries in overhead athletes. As a surgical treatment for SLAP lesions, SLAP repair has been traditionally performed. Recently, biceps tenodesis has been performed as an alternative treatment option; however, there is no review for outcome comparisons between these 2 procedures in overhead athletes. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis, especially in overhead athletes with SLAP lesions. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Studies that had a minimum follow-up of 2 years, included only patients with SLAP lesions without other major shoulder pathologies, and included only patients who engaged in overhead sports were included. The functional outcomes of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: A total of 332 articles were identified, and 13 were included in the systematic review. Even though the postoperative ASES scores were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 91.71-96.75, I2 = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 85.47-94.46, I2 = 16.3; P = .085) The rate of return to sport and the return to preinjury level of sport were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group; however, in meta-analysis these factors did not reach statistical significance (return to sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.66-0.91, I2 = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.68-0.93, I2 = 70.23; P = .94) (return to preinjury level of sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.61-0.89, I2 = 17.78; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.53-0.82, I2 = 58.07; P = .37). The biceps tenodesis group showed a lower complication rate compared with the SLAP repair group without statistical significance (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.013-0.145, I2 = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.049-0.143, I2 = 0.00; P = .25). Conclusion: The results of biceps tenodesis, compared with SLAP repair, were not inferior in the surgical treatment of overhead athletes with SLAP lesions with regard to the ASES score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate. Further high-level, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm this result.

SLAP tears and return to sport and work: current concepts

Superior labrum, anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions are common and identified in up to 26% of shoulder arthroscopies, with the greatest risk factor appearing to be overhead sporting activities. Symptomatic patients are treated with physical therapy and activity modification. However, after the failure of non-operative measures or when activity modification is precluded by athletic demands, SLAP tears have been managed with debridement, repair, biceps tenodesis or biceps tenotomy. Recently, there have been noticeable trends in the operative management of SLAP lesions with older patients receiving biceps tenodesis and younger patients undergoing SLAP repair, largely with suture anchors. For overhead athletes, particularly baseball players, SLAP lesions remain a difficult pathology to manage secondary to concomitant pathologies and unpredictable rates of return to play. As a consequence, the most appropriate surgical option in elite throwers is controversial. The objective of this current concepts review is to discuss the anatomy, mechanism of injury, presentation, diagnosis and treatment options of SLAP lesions and to present current literature on outcomes affecting return to sport and work.

Impact of Body Mass Index on the Accuracy of Physical Examination and MRI of the Shoulder

Background: The physical examination of overweight patients can require specific adaptations. Orthopaedic literature on the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the physical examination of the shoulder is virtually nonexistent. Purpose: To assess whether BMI affects the sensitivity and specificity of common shoulder tests, using arthroscopy as a gold standard. We also examined the effects of BMI on the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the shoulder for reference. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: We analyzed the data of 116 consecutive patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy for the treatment of rotator cuff tears, Bankart lesions, and superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) lesions. Preoperative BMI, physical examination of the shoulder findings, and MRI findings were extracted. Contingency tables and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of provocative tests of the shoulder and MRI as well as their relationship to BMI. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the Jobe supraspinatus test were 77.8% and 72.7% in patients with BMI ≤25, 82.6% and 70.6% in those with 25 < BMI ≤ 30, and 81.3% and 55.6% in those with BMI >30, respectively ( P < .001). The apprehension and relocation tests demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity for the overweight patients (25 < BMI ≤ 30) compared with the other BMI groups, with a sensitivity and specificity of 83.3% and 100% for the apprehension test and a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 100% for the relocation test, respectively. The O’Brien, Speed, and Ebinger tests for SLAP tears had low accuracy and did not yield statistically significant results. MRI interpretation was found to be influenced by BMI in obese patients, especially when SLAP lesions were assessed. Conclusion: Counterintuitively, tests for shoulder instability had greater specificity in overweight patients and should be encouraged, particularly in obese patients, in whom the specificity of shoulder MRI for the detection of a Bankart lesion is lower. The Jobe test was more sensitive but less specific in overweight patients. These findings may assist care providers in improving the interpretation of the shoulder examination of overweight patients and consequently lead to better treatment-related decisions.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes After Arthroscopic Repair and Biceps Tenotomy in Patients with Isolated Slap Lesions

Objective: We compared the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic repair to those after biceps tenotomy in patients with isolated superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) Type 2-3 lesions. Methods: A total of 48 patients with isolated SLAP Type 2-3 lesions, who underwent either arthroscopic repair (n=024) or tenotomy (n=24) were included in the study. CONSTANT shoulder scores in the postoperative 40th month were compared between both groups. Tenotomy was performed for the second time in 6 patients who did not benefit from arthroscopic repair, and their CONSTANT scores estimated before and 12 months after tenotomy were compared. Results: The clinical outcomes were evaluated in the arthroscopic repair group. Preoperative and postoperative CONSTANT scores were 43.87 (8.32), and 71.41 (9.75) (p<0. 001), respectively. In the tenotomy group pre-, and postoperative CONSTANT scores were 40.25(8.63), and 90.04 (4.04) (p<0.001), respectively. There was not a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the preoperative scores (p=0.146), however, the comparison of the postoperative scores revealed a significant difference (p<0.001). The mean CONSTANT score was 50.3 (±5.64) at the end of 27th month, and the mean postoperative CONSTANT score was 86.8 (±7.16) at the 12th month in six patients whose complaints did not resolve and underwent repeat arthroscopic tenotomy (p<0.001). Conclusion: In our opinion, there is no criterion for repair or tenotomy in isolated SLAP lesions. In these patients, tenotomy may be preferred in the first place because it results in more favourable outcomes compared to repair. The cause of the pain that persists after repair of the SLAP lesion should not be considered as an incorrect, inadequate repair or a complication. In the first place, intolerable biceps tendinitis should be considered.