We have located links that may give you full text access.
Subsequent Shoulder Surgery After Isolated Arthroscopic SLAP Repair.
Arthroscopy 2016 October
PURPOSE: To quantify the incidence of and identify the risk factors for subsequent shoulder procedures after isolated SLAP repair.
METHODS: New York's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was searched between 2003 and 2014 to identify individuals with the sole diagnosis of a SLAP lesion who underwent isolated arthroscopic SLAP repair. Patients were longitudinally followed up for a minimum of 3 years to analyze for subsequent ipsilateral shoulder procedures.
RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2014, 2,524 patients met our inclusion criteria. After 3 to 11 years of follow-up, 10.1% of patients (254 of 2,524) underwent repeat surgical intervention on the same shoulder as the initial SLAP repair. The mean time to repeat shoulder surgery was 2.3 ± 2.1 years. Subsequent procedures included subacromial decompression (35%), debridement (26.7%). repeat SLAP repair (19.7%), and biceps tenodesis or tenotomy (13.0%). After isolated SLAP repair, patients aged 20 years or younger were more likely to undergo arthroscopic Bankart repair (odds ratio [OR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-6.21; P = .005), whereas age older than 30 years was an independent risk factor for subsequent acromioplasty (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P < .001) and distal clavicle resection (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .030). The need for a subsequent procedure was significantly associated with Workers' Compensation cases (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 10.1% incidence of subsequent surgery after isolated SLAP repair, often related to an additional diagnosis, suggesting that clinicians should consider other potential causes of shoulder pain when considering surgery for patients with SLAP lesions. In addition, the number of isolated SLAP repairs performed has decreased over time, and management of failed SLAP repair has shifted toward biceps tenodesis or tenotomy over revision SLAP repair in more recent years.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.
METHODS: New York's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was searched between 2003 and 2014 to identify individuals with the sole diagnosis of a SLAP lesion who underwent isolated arthroscopic SLAP repair. Patients were longitudinally followed up for a minimum of 3 years to analyze for subsequent ipsilateral shoulder procedures.
RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2014, 2,524 patients met our inclusion criteria. After 3 to 11 years of follow-up, 10.1% of patients (254 of 2,524) underwent repeat surgical intervention on the same shoulder as the initial SLAP repair. The mean time to repeat shoulder surgery was 2.3 ± 2.1 years. Subsequent procedures included subacromial decompression (35%), debridement (26.7%). repeat SLAP repair (19.7%), and biceps tenodesis or tenotomy (13.0%). After isolated SLAP repair, patients aged 20 years or younger were more likely to undergo arthroscopic Bankart repair (odds ratio [OR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-6.21; P = .005), whereas age older than 30 years was an independent risk factor for subsequent acromioplasty (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P < .001) and distal clavicle resection (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .030). The need for a subsequent procedure was significantly associated with Workers' Compensation cases (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 10.1% incidence of subsequent surgery after isolated SLAP repair, often related to an additional diagnosis, suggesting that clinicians should consider other potential causes of shoulder pain when considering surgery for patients with SLAP lesions. In addition, the number of isolated SLAP repairs performed has decreased over time, and management of failed SLAP repair has shifted toward biceps tenodesis or tenotomy over revision SLAP repair in more recent years.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app