RESUMO
Background: Studies to date comparing biceps tenodesis methods in the setting of concomitant rotator cuff repair (RCR) have demonstrated relatively equivalent pain and functional outcomes. Purpose: To compare biceps tenodesis constructs, locations, and techniques in patients who underwent RCR using a large multicenter database. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A global outcome database was queried for patients with medium- and large-sized tears who underwent biceps tenodesis with RCR between 2015 and 2021. Patients ≥18 years of age with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) scores were compared at 1 and 2 years of follow-up based on construct (anchor, screw, or suture), location (subpectoral, suprapectoral, or top of groove), and technique (inlay or onlay). Nonparametric hypothesis testing was used to compare continuous outcomes at each time point. The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups were compared between groups using chi-square tests. Results: A total of 1903 unique shoulder entries were analyzed. Improvement in VR-12 Mental score favored anchor and suture fixations at 1 year of follow-up (P = .042) and the onlay tenodesis technique at 2 years of follow-up (P = .029). No additional tenodesis comparisons demonstrated statistical significance. The proportion of patients with improvement exceeding the MCID did not differ based on tenodesis methods for any outcome score assessed at the 1- or 2-year follow-up. Conclusion: Biceps tenodesis with concomitant RCR led to improved outcomes regardless of tenodesis fixation construct, location, or technique. A clear optimal tenodesis method with RCR remains to be determined. Surgeon preference and experience with various tenodesis methods as well as patient clinical presentation should continue to guide surgical decision-making.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Accurate glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains challenging even with preoperative planning, especially for variable glenoid erosion patterns in the coronal plane. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 170 primary TSAs in which preoperative planning software was used. After registration of intraoperative bony landmarks, surgeons were blinded to the navigation screen and attempted to implement their plan by simulating placement of a central-axis guide pin: 230 screenshots of simulated guide pin placement were included (aTSA = 66, rTSA = 164). Displacement, error in version and inclination, and overall malposition from the preoperatively-planned target point were stratified by the Favard classification describing superior-inferior glenoid wear: E0 (n = 89); E1 (n = 81); E2 (n = 29); E3(n = 29); E4(n = 2). Malposition was considered > 10° for version/inclination errors or > 4 mm displacement from the starting point. RESULTS: Mean displacement error was 3.5 ± 2.7 mm (aTSA = 2.7 ± 2.3 mm, rTSA = 3.8 ± 2.9 mm), version error was 5.7 ± 4.7° (aTSA = 5.8 ± 4.4°, rTSA = 5.7 ± 4.8°), inclination error was 7.1 ± 5.6 (aTSA = 4.8 ± 4.8°, rTSA = 8.1 ± 5.7°), and malposition rate was 53% (aTSA = 38%, rTSA = 59%). When compared by Favard classification, there were no differences in any measure; when stratified by TSA type, version error differed for rTSAs (P = .038), with E1 having the greatest version error (6.9 ± 5.2°) and E3 the least (4.2 ± 3.4°). When comparing glenoids without wear (E0) and glenoids with superior wear (E2 and E3), the only difference was greater version error in glenoids without wear (6.0 ± 4.9° vs. 4.6 ± 3.7°, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid malposition did not differ based on coronal glenoid morphology. Although, malposition was relatively high, suggesting surgeons should consider alternate techniques beyond preoperative planning and standard instrumentation in TSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Retrospective Cohort Study.
