Overhead Athletes and SLAP Repairs and Biceps Tenodesis on SLAP Injury Recovery
Loading...
Presenter(s)
Sydney J. Ede
Abstract
Focused Clinical Question: In throwing athletes, what is the effect of a full arthroscopic SLAP repair versus a biceps tenodesis on athletic performance?
Search Strategy: To properly analyze potential differences within these two surgical procedures, narrowed results requiring participants to be overhead or throwing athletes was required to participate within this review. Full arthroscopic repair of a SLAP lesion versus a subpectoral biceps tenodesis procedure was required to participate in these studies. The primary search engines used were PubMed and Google Scholar.
Evidence Quality Assessment: All studies used in this review were retrospective level III cohort studies.
Clinical Scenario: SLAP lesions are a very common injury in all athletes, with the increased prominence in overhead athletes. How to manage and treat this common injury is greatly discussed in the healthcare world, yet a decision on one intervention vs. another has not been established.
Methods: All included studies analyzed were cohort studies with varying levels of evidence. The patient population included patients ranging from 18 to 40 years of age who were overhead athletes. All patients had to have a SLAP lesion (Type II) and had to be treated with either a biceps tenodesis (subpectoral) or a full arthroscopic SLAP repair.
Important outcome measures include the rate of reinjury, the ability to return to pre-surgical level of competition, and the evaluation of patient reported outcomes, including ASES and VAS and DASH scores.
Results: The most profound result found in these studies was a mean increased ASES and VAS score postoperatively. All studies struggled to find any further consistent results. This is to be expected when relying on PROs for conclusive results.
Conclusions: Both procedures yielded positive outcomes in the terms of SLAP repairs. Discussion with patient on pros and cons of each procedure should occur prior to selection of intervention.
Clinical Bottom Line: Both surgical interventions have been shown to be successful, with numerous good outcomes. Patients should discuss surgical intervention preferences with physician.
Implications: The decision of these two procedures for the same or similar athletes should be made based on their future goals.
College
College of Nursing & Health Sciences
Department
Health, Exercise & Rehabilitative Sciences
Campus
Winona
First Advisor/Mentor
Brian Zeller
Second Advisor/Mentor
Nora Kraemer
Third Advisor/Mentor
Brandon Donahue
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Format of Presentation or Performance
Pre-Recorded Video
Metadata Creation Responsibility
Sydney J. Ede
Overhead Athletes and SLAP Repairs and Biceps Tenodesis on SLAP Injury Recovery
Focused Clinical Question: In throwing athletes, what is the effect of a full arthroscopic SLAP repair versus a biceps tenodesis on athletic performance?
Search Strategy: To properly analyze potential differences within these two surgical procedures, narrowed results requiring participants to be overhead or throwing athletes was required to participate within this review. Full arthroscopic repair of a SLAP lesion versus a subpectoral biceps tenodesis procedure was required to participate in these studies. The primary search engines used were PubMed and Google Scholar.
Evidence Quality Assessment: All studies used in this review were retrospective level III cohort studies.
Clinical Scenario: SLAP lesions are a very common injury in all athletes, with the increased prominence in overhead athletes. How to manage and treat this common injury is greatly discussed in the healthcare world, yet a decision on one intervention vs. another has not been established.
Methods: All included studies analyzed were cohort studies with varying levels of evidence. The patient population included patients ranging from 18 to 40 years of age who were overhead athletes. All patients had to have a SLAP lesion (Type II) and had to be treated with either a biceps tenodesis (subpectoral) or a full arthroscopic SLAP repair.
Important outcome measures include the rate of reinjury, the ability to return to pre-surgical level of competition, and the evaluation of patient reported outcomes, including ASES and VAS and DASH scores.
Results: The most profound result found in these studies was a mean increased ASES and VAS score postoperatively. All studies struggled to find any further consistent results. This is to be expected when relying on PROs for conclusive results.
Conclusions: Both procedures yielded positive outcomes in the terms of SLAP repairs. Discussion with patient on pros and cons of each procedure should occur prior to selection of intervention.
Clinical Bottom Line: Both surgical interventions have been shown to be successful, with numerous good outcomes. Patients should discuss surgical intervention preferences with physician.
Implications: The decision of these two procedures for the same or similar athletes should be made based on their future goals.
