Is arthroscopic repair superior to biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions? A meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: Labral repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are routine operations for type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their superiority is lacking. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention. METHODS: The eight studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Eight studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. The pooled results of UCLA score, SST score, and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of ASES score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention, and arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results, and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Both arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis interventions had benefits in type II SLAP lesions. Arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment provides better clinical outcome in ASES score and satisfaction rate and comparable complications compared with arthroscopic repair treatment. In view of the heterogeneity and confounding factors, whether these conclusions are applicable should be further determined in future studies.

Tenotomy versus tenodesis in the treatment of the long head of biceps brachii tendon lesions.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of tenotomy vs. tenodesis for surgery on lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon is still under debate. Indeed, high-quality evidence is lacking, mainly because of methodological problems, such as retrospective design, population sample size or lack of patient randomization. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will be a two-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to compare patients treated with biceps tenotomy or tenodesis for lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon over a 2-year follow-up period. The study participants will be 128 adults with biceps brachii tendinopathy and supraspinatus tendon tears. The primary end point will be the postoperative difference in the Constant-Murley score (CMS) between the 2 groups at the two-year follow-up. A comparison of the mean improvement with standard age- and gender-related CMS will be performed. The secondary end point will be evaluation of the postoperative general health of patients, as evaluated with Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores. The number and severity of complications associated with use of the different surgical techniques will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first randomized and appropriately powered clinical trial to directly compare tenotomy and biceps tenodesis. The results of this study will help to establish clinical practice guidelines for patients suffering from lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii tendon, providing important information to patients and health care providers about the possible complications, outcome predictors and effectiveness of the targeted interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38839558.

[Operative and follow-up treatment of rotator cuff tears--the current situation]. / Operative Therapie und Nachbehandlung der Rotatorenmanschettenruptur--Aktueller Stand.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current situation of rotator cuff repair and follow-up treatment in German hospitals. METHODS: An evaluated survey, enquiring about the year 2006, was sent to all 777 German orthopaedic and/or trauma surgery departments. The hospitals were chosen using the official index of hospitals from the German Federal Statistical Office. RESULTS: 44 % of the surveys were sent back, whereby 40 % were of use. Within the 309 departments, 26 % of the total number of 59,957 shoulder operations were rotator cuff repairs. Mini-open was the operation method in 49 %, open in 29 % and arthroscopic in 22 % of cases. Regarding the operational methods, there were differences between the departments and level of care. The arthroscopic technique was used sometimes in 48 % of the departments, whereas 52 % never used it. Specialised shoulder departments employed the total arthroscopic procedure more often. A set follow-up treatment occurred in 79 % of departments. CONCLUSION: Rotator cuff repair is mainly carried out using the mini-open method, which is nowadays regarded as gold standard.