Assessments of activities of daily living after arthroscopic SLAP repair with knot-tying versus knotless suture anchors
- 82 Downloads
The clinical influence of knot-tying or knotless anchor systems for the arthroscopic repair of SLAP lesions (superior labrum lesion from anterior to posterior) remain unclear.
Materials and methods
In a retrospective cohort analysis, 61 of 78 (78.2%) patients with isolated symptomatic SLAP II lesions were examined with a minimum of 24 months after arthroscopic SLAP repair compared to a control group: 28 patients with knot-tying anchors (group I, G1; 28.95 ± 9.48 years, 23 male/5 female), 33 with knotless anchors (group II, G2; 31 ± 10.09 years, 26 male/7 female) and 140 healthy volunteers (group III, G3; 30.9 ± 8.9 years, 109 male/31 female). The clinical assessment included an examination and estimated parameters of ADL (activities of daily living), the CS (Constant score), ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow score), DASH (disability of arm-shoulder hand) and the RS (Rowe score).
The ROM analysis recorded no significant differences for the external rotation in 0° abduction (G1 63.75° ± 15.55° versus = vs G2 65.30° ± 18.15°; pERG1 vs G2 = 0.72). The clinical outcomes revealed significantly decreased pain status in G1 for the O’brien test and in G2 for the Palm-up test, whereas Yergason test showed similar pain levels (pO’brien = 0.03; ppalm up = 0.02; pyergason > 0.5). The pulley associated rotator cuff tests revealed a significantly inferior force status in G2 compared to G1 (plift-off = 0.005, pJobe = 0.02) whereas the further rotator cuff assessments were equal. In general, the intervention group showed increased pain level and functional deficits compared to the G3. The score analysis detected no significant differences with PCSG1 vs G2, PASESG1 vs G2, PDASHG1 vs G2 and PRSG1 vs G2 all > 0.05 and significant impairments compared to G3 in all scores pG1/G2 vs G3 < 0.05 (CSG1 = 88.28 ± 14.42, CSG2=92.73 ± 9.24, CSG3 = 96.2 ± 4.96; ASESG1 = 81.10 ± 21.69, ASESG2 = 85.35 ± 17.12, ASESG3 = 94.95 ± 10.39,; DASHG1= 35.75 ± 13.44, DASHG2 = 36.03 ± 17.55, DASHG3 = 27.13 ± 6.52; RSG1 = 90.71 ± 9.88, RSG2 = 88.33 ± 11.22, RSG3= 92.96 ± 11.27).
The clinical assessment revealed for both anchor systems similar outcomes but showed general underestimated impairments after the SLAP repair surgery compared to the healthy control. The clinical status only marginally differed between both techniques, wherefore the present assessment of ADL allowed no recommendation of one of these two specific surgery technique for SLAP repair.
KeywordsSLAP lesion Arthroscopic SLAP-repair Suture anchor horizontal knot Knotless
The authors appreciate the assistance of Dr. rer. med. Hanns Ackermann for collection and analyzing the data.
There existed no funding sources for this investigation.
- 15.Stein T, Buckup J, Efe T, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Hoffmann R, Zimmermann E, Welsch F (2015) Structural and clinical integrity of the rotator cuff in athletes after arthroscopic Bankart repair using the three-portal technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(3):369–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2158-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Chokshi BV, Kubiak EN, Jazrawi LM, Ticker JB, Zheng N, Kummer FJ, Rokito AS (2006) The effect of arthroscopic suture passing instruments on rotator cuff damage and repair strength. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 63(3–4):123–125Google Scholar
- 18.Hu D (1971) Gelenkmessung (Neutral-0-Methode), Längenmessung, Umfangmessung. Bulletin des Offiziellen Organs der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen, BernGoogle Scholar
- 22.Gagey OJGN (2000) The hyperabduction test: an assessment of the laxity of the inferior Glenohumeral ligament. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82:69–74Google Scholar
- 26.Hawkins RJBD (1990) Clinical evaluation of shoulder problems. In: Rockwood CA, Matsen FA III (eds) The shoulder, vol 1. Saunders, Philadelphia. pp 149–177Google Scholar
- 34.Jobe FW, Jobe CM (1983) Painful athletic injuries of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:117–124Google Scholar
- 42.Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29 (6):602–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6%3C602::AID-AJIM4%3E3.0.CO;2-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Kurji HM, Ono Y, Nelson AA, More KD, Wong B, Dyke C, Boorman RS, Thornton GM, Lo IK (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging arthrography following type II superior labrum from anterior to posterior repair: interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Open Access J Sports Med 6:329–335. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S79722 Google Scholar