Search

Purpose: To report general life and health satisfaction after arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with post-traumatic recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and to investigate postoperative time lost to return to work at 2-year follow-up.Methods: Between 2011 and 2013 patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair in the beach chair position for acute shoulder instability were included in this study. Questions on Life Satisfaction Modules (FLZM) and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) were used as quality-of-life outcome scales. Oxford Instability Score (OIS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), and self-reported American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder index were used as functional outcome scales. Return to work (months) was monitored and analyzed depending on physical workload. Data were assessed the day before surgery and prospectively monitored until 24 months postoperatively. Quality-of-life outcome was correlated with functional shoulder outcome and compared with normative age-adjusted data. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon test, Mann-Whitney U-Test, and Spearman's correlation coefficient were used for statistical analysis.Results: Fifty-three patients were prospectively included. The mean age at surgery was 29.4 years. Satisfaction with general life and satisfaction with health (FLZM) as well as physical component scale (SF-12) improved significantly to values above normative data within 6 to 12 months after surgery (each P < .001). OIS, QuickDASH, and ASES improved significantly from baseline until 24 months after surgery (each P < .001). For ASES, improvement above minimal clinically important difference was shown. There was a positive correlation between quality of life and functional outcome scores (P < .05; rho, 0.3-0.4). Mean time to return to work was 2 months (range, 0-10; standard deviation, 1.9), with significantly longer time intervals observed in patients with heavy physical workload (3.1 months; range, 0 to 10; standard deviation, 2.4; P = .002).Conclusions: Following arthroscopic Bankart repair, quality of life was impaired during early course after surgery and increased significantly above preoperative levels within 6 to 12 months after the procedure. A steady state of excellent quality-of-life and functional outcomes was noted after 12 months of follow-up. Quality-of-life outcome scales correlated significantly with the functional outcome. Heavy physical workload must be considered as a risk factor for prolonged time lost to return to work.Level Of Evidence: Level III, prospective noncomparative therapeutic case series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To biomechanically compare the stability of the coracoid process after an anatomic double-tunnel technique using two 4-mm drill holes or a single-tunnel technique using one 4-mm or one 2.4-mm drill hole.Methods: For biomechanical testing, 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric scapulae were used and randomly assigned to one of the following groups: two 4-mm drill holes (group 1), one 4-mm drill hole (group 2), or one 2.4-mm drill hole (group 3). After standardized coracoid drilling, load was applied to the conjoined tendons at a rate of 120 mm/min and ultimate failure load, along with the failure mode, was recorded.Results: There was no significant difference between groups regarding load to failure. Mean load to failure in group 1 was 392 N; group 2, 459 N; and group 3, 506 N. The corresponding P values were .55, .74, and .20 for group 1 versus group 2, group 2 versus group 3, and group 1 versus group 3, respectively. However, the failure mode for the group with one 4-mm drill hole and the group with two 4-mm drill holes was coracoid fracture, whereas the group with one 2.4-mm drill hole showed 5 tears of the conjoined tendons and only 1 coracoid fracture (P = .015).Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference regarding load-to-failure testing between groups, the failure mechanism analysis showed that one 2.4-mm drill hole led to less destabilization of the coracoid than one or two 4-mm drill holes.Clinical Relevance: Techniques with small, 2.4-mm drill holes might decrease the risk of severe iatrogenic fracture complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to collect detailed data on postoperative sporting activity after arthroscopic Bankart repair for chronic shoulder instability.Methods: Of 113 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between February 2008 and August 2010, 81 met the inclusion criteria and were surveyed by a specially designed postal sport-specific questionnaire. Of these 81 patients, 66 (82%) were available for evaluation.Results: All previously active patients performed some activity at follow-up. Of 9 patients (56%) who had been inactive, 5 took up new activities postoperatively. Forty-four patients (66%) stated that surgery had (strongly) improved their sporting proficiency. Seventeen patients (26%) reported no impact, and 5 patients (8%) reported a further deterioration compared with preoperatively. The improvement in sporting proficiency was negatively correlated with the preoperative risk level (ρ = 0.42, P < .001), preoperative performance level (ρ = 0.31, P = .012), and preoperative Tegner scale (ρ = 0.36, P = .003), as well as hours of sporting activity per week (ρ = 0.25, P = .042), whereas age showed a positive correlation (ρ = 0.28, P = .023). There was no change in duration, frequency, number of disciplines, Tegner activity scale, risk category, or performance level.Conclusions: Arthroscopic Bankart repair provides a high rate of return to activity among patients treated for chronic shoulder instability. A number of previously inactive patients returned to activity postoperatively. However, one-third of patients reported no benefit from surgery in terms of sporting activity. The improvement in sporting proficiency was highly dependent on the demands on the shoulder in sports, as well as the age of the patient. Overall, there was no significant increase in duration, frequency, number of disciplines, Tegner activity scale, or performance level between preoperative and follow-up evaluation and no increased return to high-risk activities.Level Of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rotator interval describes the anatomic space bounded by the subscapularis, supraspinatus, and coracoid. This space contains the coracohumeral and superior glenohumeral ligament, the biceps tendon, and anterior joint capsule. Although a definitive role of the rotator interval structures has not been established, it is apparent that they contribute to shoulder dysfunction. Contracture or scarring of rotator interval structures can manifest as adhesive capsulitis. It is typically managed nonsurgically with local injections and gentle shoulder therapy. Recalcitrant cases have been successfully managed with an arthroscopic interval release and manipulation. Conversely, laxity of rotator interval structures may contribute to glenohumeral instability. In some cases this can be managed with one of a number of arthroscopic interval closure techniques. Instability of the biceps tendon is often a direct result of damage to the rotator interval. Damage to the biceps pulley structures can lead to biceps tendon subluxation or dislocation depending on the structures injured. Although some authors describe reconstruction of this tissue sling, most recommend tenodesis or tenotomy if it is significantly damaged. Impingement between the coracoid and lesser humeral tuberosity is a relatively well-established, yet less common cause of anterior shoulder pain. It may also contribute to injury of the anterosuperior rotator cuff and rotator interval structures. Although radiographic indices are described, it appears intraoperative dynamic testing may be more helpful in substantiating the diagnosis. A high index of suspicion should be used in association with biceps pulley damage or anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Coracoid impingement can be treated with either open or arthroscopic techniques. We review the anatomy and function of the rotator interval. The presentation, physical examination, imaging characteristics, and management strategies are discussed for various diagnoses attributable to the rotator interval. Our preferred methods for treatment of each lesion are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The rotator interval describes the anatomic space bounded by the subscapularis, supraspinatus, and coracoid. This space contains the coracohumeral and superior glenohumeral ligament, the biceps tendon, and anterior joint capsule. Although a definitive role of the rotator interval structures has not been established, it is apparent that they contribute to shoulder dysfunction. Contracture or scarring of rotator interval structures can manifest as adhesive capsulitis. It is typically managed nonsurgically with local injections and gentle shoulder therapy. Recalcitrant cases have been successfully managed with an arthroscopic interval release and manipulation. Conversely, laxity of rotator interval structures may contribute to glenohumeral instability. In some cases this can be managed with one of a number of arthroscopic interval closure techniques. Instability of the biceps tendon is often a direct result of damage to the rotator interval. Damage to the biceps pulley structures can lead to biceps tendon subluxation or dislocation depending on the structures injured. Although some authors describe reconstruction of this tissue sling, most recommend tenodesis or tenotomy if it is significantly damaged. Impingement between the coracoid and lesser humeral tuberosity is a relatively well-established, yet less common cause of anterior shoulder pain. It may also contribute to injury of the anterosuperior rotator cuff and rotator interval structures. Although radiographic indices are described, it appears intraoperative dynamic testing may be more helpful in substantiating the diagnosis. A high index of suspicion should be used in association with biceps pulley damage or anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Coracoid impingement can be treated with either open or arthroscopic techniques. We review the anatomy and function of the rotator interval. The presentation, physical examination, imaging characteristics, and management strategies are discussed for various diagnoses attributable to the rotator interval. Our preferred methods for treatment of each lesion are also discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Lesions of the long head biceps tendon (LHB) are frequent causes of shoulder pain and disability. Biceps tenotomy and tenodesis have gained widespread acceptance as effective procedures to manage both isolated LHB pathology and combined lesions of the rotator cuff and biceps-labral complex. The function of the LHB tendon and its role in glenohumeral kinematics presently remain only partially understood because of the difficulty of cadaveric and in vivo biomechanical studies. The purpose of this article is to offer an up-to-date review of the anatomy and biomechanical properties of the LHB and to provide an evidence-based approach to current treatment strategies for LHB disorders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the forearm supination and elbow flexion strength of the upper extremity in patients who have had an arthroscopic long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) release with patients who have had an LHBT tenodesis. Methods: Cybex isokinetic strength testing (Cybex Division of Lumex, Ronkonkoma, NY) was performed on 17 patients who underwent arthroscopic LHBT tenotomy, 19 patients who underwent arthroscopic LHBT tenodesis, and 31 age-, gender-, and body mass index–matched control subjects. Subjects were considered fully recovered from shoulder surgery, were released for unrestricted activities, and were at least 6 months after surgery before testing. Subjects were tested for forearm supination and elbow flexion strength of both arms by use of a Cybex II NORM isokinetic dynamometer at 60°/s and 120°/s. Testing was performed on injured and uninjured arms as well as dominant and nondominant arms in control subjects. Both forearm supination and elbow flexion strength values were recorded. Results: Comparison between the involved and uninvolved upper extremities within each group by use of a paired t test showed a 7% increase in elbow flexion strength when the dominant and nondominant arms were compared at 60°/s. Neither the tenotomy nor tenodesis groups exhibited elbow flexion strength differences at 120°/s (all P ≥ .147). Comparison between groups by use of 2 × 3 analysis of variance (speed × group) showed no statistical difference in either forearm supination or elbow flexion strength when we compared the tenotomy, tenodesis, and control groups. Conclusions: In asymptomatic patients who have had biceps tenotomy or tenodesis, no statistically significant forearm supination or elbow flexion strength differences existed in the involved extremity between the 2 study groups. Level of Evidence: Level III, case-control study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This is a review of joint-preservation techniques for the shoulder. Whereas the management of diffuse articular cartilage loss in the glenohumeral joints of elderly and less active patients by total shoulder arthroplasty is well accepted, significant controversy persists in selecting and refining successful operative techniques to repair symptomatic glenohumeral cartilage lesions in the shoulders of young, active patients. The principal causes of focal and diffuse articular cartilage damage in the glenohumeral joint, including previous surgery, trauma, acute or recurrent dislocation, osteonecrosis, infection, chondrolysis, osteochondritis dissecans, inflammatory arthritides, rotator cuff arthropathy, and osteoarthritis, are discussed. Focal cartilage lesions of the glenohumeral joint are often difficult to diagnose and require a refined and focused physical examination as well as carefully selected imaging studies. This review offers a concise guide to surgical decision making and up-to-date summaries of the current techniques available to treat both focal chondral defects and more massive structural osteochondral defects. These techniques include microfracture, osteoarticular transplantation (OATS [Osteochondral Autograft Transfer System]; Arthrex, Naples, FL), autologous chondrocyte implantation, bulk allograft reconstruction, and biologic resurfacing. As new approaches to glenohumeral cartilage repair and shoulder joint preservation evolve, there continues to be a heightened need for collaborative research and well-designed outcomes analysis to facilitate successful patient care. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Arthroscopic treatment of bony Bankart lesions can be challenging. We present a new easy and reproducible technique for arthroscopic reduction and suture anchor fixation of bony Bankart fragments. A suture anchor is placed medially to the fracture on the glenoid neck, and its sutures are passed around the bony fragment through the soft tissue including the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex. The sutures of this anchor are loaded in a second anchor that is placed on the glenoid face. This creates a nontilting 2-point fixation that compresses the fragment into its bed. By use of the standard technique, additional suture anchors are used superiorly and inferiorly to the bony Bankart piece to repair the labrum and shift the joint capsule. We call this the “bony Bankart bridge” procedure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To compare a conventional single-row (SR) repair technique and 2 double-row (DR) repair techniques to restore and protect the superolateral aspect of the subscapularis (SSC) tendon and ensure SSC leading-edge reconstruction in a cadaveric model.Methods: The native footprint was measured in 15 pairs of human cadaveric shoulders (N = 30) with a mean age of 67.2 years. According to the Fox-Romeo classification, a 25% defect or 50% defect in a superior-inferior direction was created. Specimens were mounted onto a servohydraulic test system to analyze contact variables at 0° and 20° of abduction with a force-controlled ramped program up to 50 N. In addition, each specimen was cyclically loaded (10-100 N, 300 cycles). The tears were repaired with 1 of 3 constructs: a 2-anchor medially based conventional SR construct, a 2-anchor-based hybrid DR construct, or a 3-anchor-based DR construct. The outcome variables were ultimate tensile load, displacement, and pressurized footprint coverage.Results: All reconstructions resulted in stable constructs with peak loads exceeding 450 N (P = .68). The overall displacement during cyclic loading was between 1.2 and 3.0 mm (P = .70). A significant difference was seen when the 2 arm positions of 0° and 20° of abduction were compared, showing a constant reduction of pressurized footprint coverage with the arm abducted (P = .01). Analyzing footprint coverage with respect to the region of interest-the leading edge of the SSC-we observed a significant difference between the SR construct and a construct using a superolaterally placed anchor (25% defect, P = .01; 50% defect, P = .01), whereas no statistical differences were detectable between the hybrid DR construct and the DR construct.Conclusions: The leading edge of the SSC tendon can best be restored by using a superolateral anchor, whereas no statistical difference in load to failure in comparison with an SR construct or with the addition of a third anchor was detectable.Clinical Relevance: The SSC is critical for proper shoulder function. Without an increase in the number of implants, a significantly better footprint reconstruction can be achieved by placing an anchor superior and lateral to the native footprint area close to the entrance of the bicipital groove. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arthroscopically assisted treatments for dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint combine the advantages of exact and visually controlled coracoid tunnel placement with the possibility of simultaneous treatment of concomitant injuries. The clinical results of previous arthroscopically assisted techniques have been favorable at midterm and long-term follow-up. The presented surgical technique combines the advantages of arthroscopically positioned coracoclavicular stabilization with an additional suture cord cerclage of the acromioclavicular joint capsule for improved horizontal stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]