Key result
Combined treatment of Type II SLAP tears and other shoulder conditions resulted in significantly better post-operative ASES scores (91.8 vs 84.1, P<0.04) compared to isolated SLAP repair.
Why the study?
Does combined treatment of Type II SLAP tears and associated shoulder conditions improve clinical outcomes compared to isolated Type II SLAP repair in active duty males?
Cohort (n=36)
Does combined treatment of Type II SLAP tears and associated shoulder conditions improve clinical outcomes compared to isolated Type II SLAP repair in active duty males?
Absolute Event Rate: 91.8% vs 84.1%
p-value: p=<0.04
Concurrent treatment of associated extra-articular shoulder conditions alongside Type II SLAP repair improves patient-reported outcomes in active duty males.
May favor addressing concomitant lesions alongside Type II SLAP tears; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change isolated repair practice.
The study compares the clinical results of isolated arthroscopic repair of Type II SLAP tears with those of combined treatment for Type II SLAP and other associated shoulder conditions. The population was composed of 36 aged-matched active duty males with a mean age of 31.6 years (range 22-41 years); mean follow-up was 29.1 months (range 24-42 months). Eighteen subjects in Group I had isolated Type II SLAP tears. Eighteen subjects in Group II had Type II SLAP tear and concomitant ipsilateral shoulder conditions, including subacromial impingement in six patients, acromioclavicular arthrosis in three patients, subacromial impingement and acromioclavicular arthrosis in four patients, spinoglenoid cyst in four patients, and intra-articular loose bodies in one patient. Arthroscopic SLAP repair was performed with biodegradable suture anchors. Subacromial decompression and spinoglenoid cyst decompression were performed arthroscopically. Distal claviculectomy was performed in open fashion. Loose bodies were removed arthroscopically. At minimum 2-year follow-up, the mean UCLA score for Group I (30.2 +/- 3.0 points) was not significantly different from Group II (30.8 +/- 2.0 points) (P = 0.48). The mean post-operative ASES score for Group I (84.1 +/- 13.4 points) was significantly lower than for Group II (91.8 +/- 5.4 points) (P < 0.04). The mean VAS pain score for Group I (1.6 +/- 1.3 points) was significantly higher than for Group II (0.7 +/- 0.7 points) (P < 0.02). Seventeen of 18 patients (94%) in each group returned to full duty. In a population of active duty males, arthroscopic repair of isolated Type II SLAP had comparable results with a cohort of Type II SLAP repairs treated in combination with other shoulder conditions, with the combined treatment group having significantly better results in two of three parameters measured. Return to duty rates were identical. Therefore, concurrent treatment of other associated extra-articular shoulder conditions improves the overall success of SLAP repair and the presence of these other conditions should be recognized and treated along with the SLAP tears in order to maximize clinical results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enad et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in Type II SLAP tears (n=36). Combined treatment for Type II SLAP and other associated shoulder conditions vs. Isolated arthroscopic repair of Type II SLAP tears was evaluated on Post-operative ASES score (p=<0.04). Combined treatment of Type II SLAP tears and other shoulder conditions resulted in significantly better post-operative ASES scores (91.8 vs 84.1, P<0.04) compared to isolated SLAP repair.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: