The purpose of this study was to review the results of biceps tenodesis and biceps reinsertion in the treatment of type II SLAP lesions. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of a continuous series of patients. Only isolated type II SLAP lesions were included: twenty-five cases from January 2000 to April 2004. Exclusion criteria included associated instability, rotator cuff rupture and previous shoulder surgery. Ten patients (ten men) with an average age of thirty-seven years (range, 19–57) had a reinsertion of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) to the labrum with two suture anchors. Fifteen patients (nine men and six women) with an average age of fifty-two years (range, 28–64) underwent biceps tenodesis in the bicipital groove. All patients were reviewed by an independent examiner. In the reattachment group, the average follow-up was thirty-five months (range, 24–69); three patients underwent subsequent biceps tenodesis for persistent pain, three others were disappointed because of an inability to return to their previous level of sport, and the remaining four were very satisfied. The average Constant score improved from sixty-five to eighty-three points. In the tenodesis group, the average follow-up was thirty-four months (range, 24–68). No patient required revision surgery. Subjectively, one patient was disappointed (atypical residual pain), two were satisfied and twelve were very satisfied. All patients returned to their previous level of sports, and the average Constant score improved from fifty-nine to eighty-nine points. The results of labral reattachment were disappointing in comparison to biceps tenodesis. Thus, arthroscopic biceps tenodesis can be considered as an effective alternative to reattachment in the treatment of isolated type II SLAP lesions. By moving the origin of the biceps to an extra-articular position, we eliminated the traction on the superior labrum and the source of pain; furthermore, range of motion and strength are unaltered allowing for a return to a pre-surgical level of activity.
The purpose of this study is to catalogue humeral problems with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and define their influence on outcome. A multicenter retrospective review of 399 reverse humeral arthroplasties implanted between January 1994 and April 2003, yielded seventy-nine patients with humeral problems. We define a clinical humeral problem as an event that alters the expected rehab or postoperative course. Perioperative problems are fractures within the stem zone while postoperative problems involve fractures distal to the stem, prosthetic disassembly and subsidence. Radiologic problems include humeral loosening and radiolucencies of greater than 2 mm that have not had a clinical impact. All radiographs were available and reviewed by three orthopaedic surgeons. Objective results were rated according to the Constant score; active forward flexion and external rotation were recorded; and subjective outcome was noted. We identified twenty-six intra-operative fractures and eleven postoperative fractures. There were four cases of disassembly, three cases of subsidence, and fifteen cases of radiographic loosening. At a mean follow-up of forty-seven months, average active elevation was 111.3 degrees, external rotation was 7.0 degrees, and absolute Constant score improved from 21.9 to 50.1 points. Seventy-one percent of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied. Intra-operative humeral fractures were associated with poor final Constant score (42.3), poor range of motion and increased shoulder pain (p=0.001 for all items). Constant score for those revision patients who experienced a fracture was lower by 9.6 points (p=0.0347) than those patients who underwent a reverse prosthesis for revision surgery without a fracture. Constant score for those patients with a postoperative fracture averaged 47.2 (range, 8–70). A re-operation was performed in seven of the cases (9%). Intra-operative humeral fractures occur commonly when a reverse prosthesis is indicated for revision; humerotomy is not protective, however, and is not recommended for all humeral revisions. Fractures, either intraoperative or post-operative, result in lower Constant scores. Any patient who received an intervention for a humeral problem yielded a lower constant score. While postoperative Constant scores improved in all categories, they were lower than those patients who did not sustain a humeral complication.
The management and outcome of treatment in 42 patients (49 shoulders) with an infected shoulder prosthesis was reviewed in a retrospective multicentre study of 2343 prostheses. The factors which were analysed included the primary diagnosis, the delay between the diagnosis of infection and treatment and the type of treatment. Treatment was considered to be successful in 30 patients (71%). Previous surgery and radiotherapy were identified as risk factors for the development of infection. All patients with an infected prosthesis had pain and limitation of movement and 88% showed radiological loosening. In 50% of the shoulders, the antibiotics chosen and the length of treatment were considered not to be optimal. The mean follow-up was 34 months. Antibiotics or debridement alone were ineffective. In acute infection, immediate revision with excision of all infected tissue and exchange of the prosthesis with appropriate antibiotic therapy gave the best results. Multidisciplinary collaboration is recommended.