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 report the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair following failed open treatment of anterior instability. We performed a retrospective review of twenty-two patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability (i.e. subluxations or dislocations, with or without pain) after open surgical stabilization. There were seventeen men and five women with an average age of thirty-one years (range, 15–65). The most recent interventions consisted of sixteen osseous transfers (twelve Latarjet and four Eden-Hybinette), three open Bankart repairs and three capsular shifts. The causes of failure were additional trauma in twelve patients and complications related to the bone-block in thirteen (poor position, fracture, pseudarthrosis or lysis). All patients were noted to have distension of the anterior-inferior capsular structures. Labral re-attachment and capsulo-ligamentous re-tensioning with suture anchors was performed in all cases with an additional rotator interval closure in four patients and an inferior capsular plication in twelve patients; the bone block screws were removed in eight patients. At an average follow-up of forty-three months (range, twenty-four to seventy-two months), nineteen patients were evaluated by two independent observers. One patient had recurrent subluxation, and two patients had persistent apprehension. Anterior elevation was unchanged, and loss of external rotation (RE1) was 6°. Nine patients returned to sport at the same level; all patients returned to their previous occupations, including the six cases of work-related injury. Eighty-nine percent were satisfied or very satisfied; the subjective shoulder value (SSV) was 83% ± 23%; the Walch-Duplay, Rowe and UCLA scores were 85 ± 21, 81 ± 23 and 30 ± 7 points respectively. The number of previous interventions did not influence the results. Eight patients (42%) were still painful (six with light pain and two with moderate pain). Arthroscopic revision of open anterior shoulder stabilization gives satisfactory results. The shoulders are both stable and functional. While the stability obtained with this approach is encouraging, our enthusiasm is tempered by some cases of persistent pain.
The objective of this study is to report the epidemiology and results of treatment of deep infection after a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. This is a multicenter retrospective study involving 457 reverse prostheses performed between 1992 and 2002. Fifteen patients (3%) (mean age 71 ± 9 years) presented with a deep infection. Eight were primary arthroplasties and seven were revision procedures. There were five associated peri-operative fractures and three early postoperative complications requiring surgical treatment. Infection was treated by debridement (n=4), prosthetic resection (n=10) or two-stage revision (n=1). The infection rate was 2% (8/363) for a primary reverse arthroplasty and 7% (7/94) for revisions. The infection was diagnosed at a mean of seventeen months (range, one to fifty-seven) post-operatively, corresponding to two acute, five sub-acute and eight chronic infections. The most common pathogen was P. acnes in six cases (40%). At a mean follow-up of thirty-four ± nineteen months, there were twelve remissions (80%) and three recurrent infections. The two acute infections (one debridement and one resection) and the eight chronic infections (seven resections and one two-stage revision) were in remission. Among the five sub-acute infections, the two resections were in remission, whereas the three debridements recurred. Overall, the ten resections were in remission with seven patients disappointed and three satisfied, a mean Constant score of thirty-one ± eight points and a mean active anterior elevation of 53 ± 15°. The two-stage exchange was in remission but remained disappointed with a Constant score of twenty-seven points and an active anterior elevation of 90°. Infection compromises the functional results of the reverse prosthesis whatever the treatment performed. Acute infections appear to be satisfactorily treated by debridement or resection. Both resection and two-stage revision can successfully treat sub-acute and chronic infection; however, debridement alone is ineffective and not recommended. There is a high rate of infection when the reverse prosthesis is used in revision arthroplasty. Prevention, by looking for such infection before surgery and by performing a two-stage procedure is recommended in the case of any uncertainty.