Adequate visual clarity is paramount to performing arthroscopic shoulder surgery safely, efficiently, and effectively. The addition of epinephrine in irrigation fluid, and the intravenous or local administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) have independently been reported to decrease bleeding thereby improving the surgeon's visualization during arthroscopic shoulder procedures. No study has compared the effect of systemic administered TXA, epinephrine added in the irrigation fluid or the combination of both TXA and epinephrine on visual clarity during shoulder arthroscopy with a placebo group. The purpose of this study is to determine if intravenous TXA is a safe alternative to epinephrine delivered by a pressure-controlled pump in improving arthroscopic shoulder visualization during arthroscopic procedures and whether using both TXA and epinephrine together has an additive effect in improving visualization.

The design of the study was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial with four 1:1:1:1 parallel groups conducted at one center. Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing arthroscopic shoulder procedures including rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic biceps tenotomy/tenodesis, distal clavicle excision, subacromial decompression and labral repair by five fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons were randomized into one of four arms: Pressure pump-controlled regular saline irrigation fluid (control), epinephrine (1ml of 1:1000) mixed in irrigation fluid (EPI), 1g intravenous TXA (TXA), and epinephrine and TXA (EPI/TXA). Visualization was rated on a 4-point Likert scale every 15 minutes with 0 indicating ‘poor’ quality and 3 indicating ‘excellent’ quality. The primary outcome measure was the unweighted mean of these ratings. Secondary outcomes included mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), surgery duration, surgery complexity, and adverse events within the first postoperative week.

One hundred and twenty-eight participants with a mean age (± SD) of 56 (± 11) years were randomized. Mean visualization quality for the control, TXA, EPI, and EPI/TXA groups were 2.1 (±0.40), 2.1 (±0.52), 2.6 (±0.37), 2.6 (±0.35), respectively. In a regression model with visual quality as the dependent variable, the presence/absence of EPI was the most significant predictor of visualization quality (R=0.525; p < 0 .001). TXA presence/absence had no effect, and there was no interaction between TXA and EPI. The addition of MAP and surgery duration strengthened the model (R=0.529; p < 0 .001). Increased MAP and surgery duration were both associated with decreased visualization quality. When surgery duration was controlled, surgery complexity was not a significant predictor of visualization quality. No adverse events were recorded in any of the groups.

Intravenous administration of TXA is not an effective alternative to epinephrine in the irrigation fluid to improve visualization during routine arthroscopic shoulder surgeries although its application is safe. There is no additional improvement in visualization when TXA is used in combination with epinephrine beyond the effect of epinephrine alone.

Adequate visual clarity is paramount to performing arthroscopic shoulder surgery safely, efficiently, and effectively. The addition of epinephrine in irrigation fluid, and the intravenous or local administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) have independently been reported to decrease bleeding thereby improving the surgeon's visualization during arthroscopic shoulder procedures. No study has compared the effect of systemic administered TXA, epinephrine added in the irrigation fluid or the combination of both TXA and epinephrine on visual clarity during shoulder arthroscopy with a placebo group. The purpose of this study is to determine if intravenous TXA is a safe alternative to epinephrine delivered by a pressure-controlled pump in improving arthroscopic shoulder visualization during arthroscopic procedures and whether using both TXA and epinephrine together has an additive effect in improving visualization.

The design of the study was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial with four 1:1:1:1 parallel groups conducted at one center. Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing arthroscopic shoulder procedures including rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic biceps tenotomy/tenodesis, distal clavicle excision, subacromial decompression and labral repair by five fellowship-trained upper extremity surgeons were randomized into one of four arms: Pressure pump-controlled regular saline irrigation fluid (control), epinephrine (1ml of 1:1000) mixed in irrigation fluid (EPI), 1g intravenous TXA (TXA), and epinephrine and TXA (EPI/TXA). Visualization was rated on a 4-point Likert scale every 15 minutes with 0 indicating ‘poor’ quality and 3 indicating ‘excellent’ quality. The primary outcome measure was the unweighted mean of these ratings. Secondary outcomes included mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), surgery duration, surgery complexity, and adverse events within the first postoperative week.

One hundred and twenty-eight participants with a mean age (± SD) of 56 (± 11) years were randomized. Mean visualization quality for the control, TXA, EPI, and EPI/TXA groups were 2.1 (±0.40), 2.1 (±0.52), 2.6 (±0.37), 2.6 (±0.35), respectively. In a regression model with visual quality as the dependent variable, the presence/absence of EPI was the most significant predictor of visualization quality (R=0.525; p < 0 .001). TXA presence/absence had no effect, and there was no interaction between TXA and EPI. The addition of MAP and surgery duration strengthened the model (R=0.529; p < 0 .001). Increased MAP and surgery duration were both associated with decreased visualization quality. When surgery duration was controlled, surgery complexity was not a significant predictor of visualization quality. No adverse events were recorded in any of the groups.

Intravenous administration of TXA is not an effective alternative to epinephrine in the irrigation fluid to improve visualization during routine arthroscopic shoulder surgeries although its application is safe. There is no additional improvement in visualization when TXA is used in combination with epinephrine beyond the effect of epinephrine alone.

Previously, we conducted a multi-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing arthroscopic Bankart repair with and without remplissage. The end point for the randomized controlled trial was two years post-operative, providing support for the benefits of remplissage in the short term in reducing recurrent instability. The aim of this study was to compare the medium term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of patients previously randomized to have undergone isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) for the management of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability. The rate of recurrent instability and instances of re-operation were examined.

The original study was a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial with two 1:1 parallel groups with recruitment undertaken between 2011 and 2017. For this medium-term study, participants were reached for a telephone follow-up in 2020 and asked a series of standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation or reoperation that had occurred on their shoulder for which they were randomized. Descriptive statistics were generated for all variables. “Failure” was defined as occurrence of a dislocation. “Recurrent instability” was defined as the participant reporting a dislocation or two or more occurences of subluxation greater than one year post-operative. All analyses were undertaken based on intention-to-treat whereby their data was analyzed based on the group to which they were originally allocated.

One-hundred and eight participants were randomized of which 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to final follow-up was 49.3 for the NO REMP group and 53.8 for the REMP group. The rates of re-dislocation or failure were 8% (4/52) in the REMP group at an average of 23.8 months post-operative versus 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP at an average of 16.5 months post-operative. The rates of recurrent instability were 10% (5/52) in the REMP group at an average of 24 months post-operative versus 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group at an average of 19.5 months post-operative. Survival curves were significantly different favouring REMP in both scenarios.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with remplissage is an effective procedure in the treatment of patients with an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion and minimal glenoid bone loss (<15%). Patients can expect favourable rates of recurrent instability when compared with isolated Bankart repair at medium term follw-up.

Our primary objective was to compare healing rates in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for degenerative tears, with and without bone channeling. Our secondary objectives were to compare disease-specific quality of life and patient reported outcomes as measured by the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Constant score between groups.

Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at three sites were randomized to receive either bone channeling augmentation or standard repair. Healing rates were determined by ultrasound at 6 and 24 months post operatively. WORC, ASES, and Constant scores were compared between groups at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post operatively.

One hundred sixty-eight patients were recruited and randomized between 2013 to 2018. Statistically significant improvements occurred in both groups from pre-operative to all time points in all clinical outcome scores (p < 0 .0001). Intention to treat analysis revealed no statistical differences in healing rates between the two interventions at 24 months post-operative. No differences were observed in WORC, ASES or Constant scores at any time-point.

This trial did not demonstrate superiority of intra-operative bone channeling in rotator cuff repair surgery at 24 months post-operative. Healing rates and patient-reported function and quality of life measures were similar between groups.

When compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US) performed by experienced users is an inexpensive tool that has good sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing rotator cuff (RC) tears. However, many practitioners are now utilizing in-office US with little to no formal training as an adjunct to clinical evaluation in the management of RC pathology. The purpose of our study was to determine if US without formal training is effective in managing patients with a suspected RC tear.

This was a single centre prospective observational study. Five fellowship-trained surgeons each examined 50 participants referred for a suspected RC tear (n= 250). Patients were screened prior to the consultation and were included if ≥ 40 years old, had an MRI of their affected shoulder, had failed conservative treatment of at least 6 months, and had ongoing pain and disability. Patients were excluded if they had glenohumeral instability, evidence of major joint trauma, or osteonecrosis. After routine clinical exam, surgeons recorded their treatment plan (“No Surgery”, “Uncertain”, or “Surgery”). Surgeons then performed an in-office diagnostic US followed by an MRI and documented their treatment plan after each imaging study. Interrater reliability was analyzed using a kappa statistic to compare clinical to ultrasound findings and ultrasound findings to MRI, normal and abnormal categorization of biceps, supraspinatus, and subscapularis.

Following clinical assessment, the treatment plan was recorded as “No Surgery” in 90 (36%), “Uncertain” in 96 (39%) of cases, “Surgery” in 61 (25%) cases, and incomplete in 3 (2%). In-office US allowed resolution of 68 (71%) of uncertain cases with 227 (88%) of patients having a definitive treatment plan. No patients in the “No Surgery” group had a change in treatment plan. After MRI, 16 (6%) patients in the “No Surgery” crossed-over to the “Surgery” group after identification of full-thickness tears, larger than expected tears or alternate pathology (e.g., labral tear).

The combination of clinical examination and in-office US may be an effective method in the initial management of patients with suspected rotator cuff pathology. Using this method, a definitive diagnosis and treatment plan was established in 88% of patients with the remaining 12% requiring an MRI. A small percentage (6%) of patients with larger than expected full-thickness rotator cuff tears and/or alternate glenohumeral pathology (e.g., labral tear) would be missed at initial evaluation.

Recent literature has demonstrated that conventional arthroscopic techniques do not adequately visualise areas of predilection of pathology of the long head of biceps (LHB) tendon and are associated with a 30–50% rate of missed diagnoses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and ease of performing biceps tenoscopy as a novel strategy for reducing the rate of missed diagnoses.

Five forequarter amputation cadaver specimens were studied. The pressure in the anterior compartment was measured before and after surgical evaluation. Diagnostic glenohumeral arthroscopy was performed and the biceps tendon was tagged to mark the maximum length visualised by pulling the tendon into the joint. Biceps tenoscopy was performed using 3 different techniques (1. Flexible video-endoscopy, 2. Standard arthroscopy via Neviaser portal. 3. Standard arthroscope via antero-superior portal with retrograde instrumentation). Each was assessed for safety, ease of the procedure and whether the full length of the extra-articular part of the LHB tendon could be visualised. The t-test was used to compare the length of the LHB tendon visualised at standard glenohumeral arthroscopy vs that visualised at biceps tenoscopy. An open dissection was performed after the arthroscopic procedures to evaluate for an iatrogenic injury to local structures.

Biceps tenoscopy allowed visualisation to the musculotendinous junction in all cases. The mean length of the tendon visualised was therefore significantly greater at biceps tenoscopy (104 mm) than at standard glenohumeral arthroscopy (33 mm) (mean difference 71 mm, p<0.0001). Biceps tenoscopy was safe with regards to compartment syndrome and there was no difference between pre- and post-operative pressure measurements (mean difference 0 mmHg, p=1). No iatrogenic injuries were identified at open dissection.

Biceps tenoscopy allows excellent visualisation of the entire length of the LHB tendon and therefore has the potential to reduce the rate of missed diagnoses. This study did not demonstrate any risk of iatrogenic injury to important local structures or any risk of compartment syndrome. Clinical evaluation is required to further validate this technique.

The majority of studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data for imaging modalities and physical examination tests for long head of biceps (LHB) tendon pathology use arthroscopy as the gold standard. However, there is little published data to validate this as an appropriate benchmark. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum length of the LHB tendon that can be seen at glenohumeral arthroscopy and whether it allows adequate visualisation of common sites of pathology.

Seven female cadaveric specimens were studied. Mean age was 74 years (range 44–96 years). Each specimen underwent arthroscopy in lateral decubitus (LD) and beach chair (BC) positions. The LBH-tendon was tagged with a suture placed with a spinal needle marking the intra-articular length and the maximum excursions achieved using a hook and a grasper in both LD and BC positions. T-tests were used to compare data.

The mean intra-articular and extra-articular lengths of the tendon were 23.9 mm and 82.3 mm respectively. The mean length of tendon that could be visualised by pulling it into the joint with a hook was significantly less than with a grasper (LD: hook 29.9 mm, grasper 33.9 mm, mean difference 4 mm, p=0.0032. BC: hook 32.7 mm, grasper 37.6 mm, mean difference 4.9 mm, p=0.0001). Using the BC position allowed visualisation of a significantly greater length than the LD position when using either a hook (mean difference 2.86 mm, p=0.0327) or a grasper (mean difference 3.7 mm, p=0.0077). The mean length of the extra-articular part of the tendon visualised using a hook was 6 mm in LD and 8.9 mm in BC. The maximum length of the extra-articular portion visualised using this technique was 14 mm (17%).

Pulling the tendon into the joint with a hook does not allow adequate visualisation of common distal sites of pathology in either LD or BC. Although the BC position allows a significantly greater proportion of the tendon to be visualised this represents a numerically small value and is not likely to be clinically significant. The use of a grasper also allowed greater excursion but results in iatrogenic tendon injury which precludes its use. The reported incidence of pathology in Denard zone C (distal to subscapularis) is 80% and in our study it was not possible to evaluate this zone even by using a grasper or maximum manual force to increase excursion. This is consistent with the extremely high rate of missed diagnoses reported in the literature. Surgeons should be aware that the technique of pulling the LHB-tendon into the joint is inadequate for visualising distal pathology and results in a high rate of missed diagnoses. Furthermore, efforts to achieve greater excursion by “optimum” limb positioning intra-operatively do not confer an important clinical advantage and are probably unnecessary.