ABSTRACT
Background: Shoulder arthroscopy is commonly performed in the beach chair position, which has been linked to cerebral oxygen desaturation. Previous studies comparing general anesthesia (GA) to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using propofol indicate that TIVA can preserve cerebral perfusion and autoregulation, as well as shorten recovery time and reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, few studies have evaluated the use of TIVA in shoulder arthroscopy. Thus, this study seeks to determine if TIVA is superior to traditional GA methods in terms of improving operating room efficiency, shortening recovery time, and reducing adverse events while theoretically preserving cerebral autoregulation in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position, comparing 2 anesthetic techniques. One hundred fifty patients were included (75 TIVA and 75 GA). Unpaired t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Outcome measures included operating room times, recovery times, and adverse events. Results: Compared to GA, TIVA significantly improved phase 1 recovery time (53.2 ± 32.9 min compared to 65.8 ± 41.3 min; P = .037) and total recovery time (120.3 ± 31.0 min compared to 131.5 ± 36.8 min; P = .048). TIVA also decreased time from case finish to out-of-room (6.5 ± 3.5 min compared to 8.4 ± 6.3 min; P = .021). However, the in-room to case start time was slightly longer for the TIVA group (31.8 ± 7.22 min compared to 29.2 ± 4.92 min; P = .012). Although not statistically significant, there were fewer readmissions in the TIVA group compared to the GA group (P = .08), and TIVA had lower rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (P = .22) and higher intraoperative mean arterial pressures (87.1 ± 11.4 mmHg in the TIVA group compared to 85.0 ± 9.3 mmHg in the GA group; P = .22). Conclusion: TIVA may be a safe and efficient alternative to GA in shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position. Larger scale studies are needed to evaluate the risk of adverse events related to impaired cerebral autoregulation in the beach chair position.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare various nonarthroplasty treatment options for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears, including allograft bridging/augmentation, debridement, partial repair, superior capsule reconstruction (SCR), subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for all articles pertaining to nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Inclusion criteria included manuscripts published between 2009 and 2020 with at least 1 year follow-up and Level I-IV evidence. Articles were separated into six groups: debridement, arthroscopic and open repair, allograft bridging/augmentation, SCR, subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. Data points included range of motion (external rotation, abduction, forward flexion, and internal rotation), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, rate of revision surgery, and rate of conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: A total of 83 studies and 3363 patients were included. All treatment options had statistically significant improvements in postoperative range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. The SCR subgroup had the greatest improvement in ASES scores postoperatively. The overall revision rate was 7.2% among all surgical options, with the allograft bridging/augmentation group having the lowest rate of revision at 0-8.3%. The overall rate of conversion to arthroplasty was 7.2%, with debridement having the greatest rate of conversion at 15.4%. CONCLUSION: All six nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears resulted in statistically significant improvements in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year follow-up or more, with low rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneous nature of the data, lack of prospective randomized control trials, and short-term follow-up. The findings of this study highlight the complexity of irreparable, massive rotator cuff tears, and the need for an individualized approach when treating these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
