Technique for Type IV SLAP Lesion Repair

Altıntaş, Burak; Pitta, Rafael; Fritz, Erik M.; Higgins, Brendan; Millett, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/j.eats.2017.10.004

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various fixation techniques and implants are described for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. [15][16][17][18][19] Interference screw fixation has traditionally served as the gold standard with superior biomechanical strength. 15 However, because of concerns for a humeral stress riser with larger drill holes, other techniques have evolved to mitigate this risk while taking advantage of the benefits of the subpectoral location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have reported on different suprapectoral and subpectoral fixation techniques for biceps tenodesis, showing interference screw fixation to provide the strongest biomechanical stability. [15][16][17][18][19]22 However, complications including implant failure, bioabsorbable screw reactions, and especially humeral fractures have been reported. [12][13][14] Sears et al 14 reported a case series of humeral fractures after subpectoral biceps tenodesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

Lacheta

Imhoff

Siebenlist

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgical management for biceps pathologies has advanced to provide stronger fixation and to be less invasive. The long head of the biceps tendon has been recognized as a common contributor to anterior shoulder pain and is often associated with other glenohumeral pathologies such as SLAP lesions, rotator cuff tears, and subacromial impingement. Both tenotomy and tenodesis have shown to be effective in ameliorating pain associated with the long head of the biceps tendon. However, decreased muscle function and cosmetic concerns are seen at higher rates after tenotomy compared with tenodesis. One option for the treatment of biceps tendon pathology includes mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Lower reoperation rates are observed after subpectoral biceps tenodesis than after suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, with thoughts that releasing the tendon from its sheath and the bicipital groove relieves the patient of most associated pain. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe in detail our preferred operative technique for mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with all-suture anchor fixation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

Lacheta

Imhoff

Siebenlist

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the presence of degenerative multiple fraying of the superior labrum, a biceps tenodesis was preferred (in case of an unstable superior labral tear, an additional SLAP repair was performed, as mentioned below). 1 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SLAP Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Type 2 Lesions in Overhead Athletes Younger Than 35 Years: Comparison of Minimum 2-Year Outcomes

Lacheta

Horan

Nolte

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It remains unclear if young overhead athletes with isolated superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) type 2 lesions benefit more from SLAP repair or subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes and return to sport in overhead athletes with symptomatic SLAP type 2 lesions who underwent either biceps tenodesis or SLAP repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed in patients who underwent subpectoral biceps tenodesis (n = 14) or SLAP repair (n = 24) for the treatment of isolated type 2 SLAP lesions. All patients were aged <35 years at time of surgery, participated in overhead sports, and were at least 2 years out from surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) score; and the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) physical component score. Return to sport and patient satisfaction were documented. Clinical failures requiring revision surgery and complications were reported. Results: Preoperative baseline scores in both the tenodesis and SLAP repair groups were similar. There were no significant differences between the groups on any postoperative outcome measure: For biceps tenodesis versus SLAP repair, the ASES score was 92.7 ± 10.4 versus 89.1 ± 16.7, the SANE score was 86.2 ± 13.7 versus 83.0 ± 24.1, the QuickDASH score was 10.0 ± 12.7 versus 9.0 ± 14.3, and SF-12 was 51.2 ± 7.5 versus 52.8 ± 7.7. No group difference in return-to-sports rate (85% vs 79%; P = .640) was noted. More patients in the tenodesis group (80%) reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity postoperatively because of weakness compared with patients in the SLAP repair group (15%; P = .022). One patient in each group progressed to surgery for persistent postoperative stiffness, and 1 patient in the tenodesis group had a postoperative complication related to the index surgery. Conclusion: Both subpectoral biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair provided excellent clinical results for the treatment of isolated SLAP type 2 lesions, with a high rate of return to overhead sports and a low failure rate, in a young and high-demanding patient cohort. More patients reported modifying their sporting/recreational activity because of weakness after subpectoral tenodesis.

show abstract

“…The long head of biceps tendon, superior labrum, rotator cuff, cartilage surfaces, and surrounding structures are evaluated thoroughly. 12 Arthroscopic Decompression of the Spinoglenoid Cyst.…”

Section: Diagnostic Arthroscopymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound-Guided Intralesional Methylene Blue Injection for the Arthroscopic Decompression of Spinoglenoid Notch Cyst Causing Suprascapular Neuropathy

Büyükdoğan

Altıntaş

Koyuncu

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy Techniques

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Symptomatic spinoglenoid ganglion cyst is a rare cause of shoulder pain and disability. Surgical treatment, which may be considered after failed nonoperative treatment, includes open or arthroscopic cyst debridement. Arthroscopic treatment is less invasive and has the advantage of addressing intraarticular pathologies; however, exposure of the cyst may be deemed difficult. Furthermore, the suprascapular nerve is susceptible to iatrogenic injury owing to its close proximity to the posterior glenoid rim. The purpose of this article is to present our technique for arthroscopic spinoglenoid cyst decompression after preoperative ultrasound-guided methylene blue injection.

show abstract

Technique for Type IV SLAP Lesion Repair

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

SLAP Repair Versus Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Type 2 Lesions in Overhead Athletes Younger Than 35 Years: Comparison of Minimum 2-Year Outcomes

Ultrasound-Guided Intralesional Methylene Blue Injection for the Arthroscopic Decompression of Spinoglenoid Notch Cyst Causing Suprascapular Neuropathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About