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.

Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. No previous comparative trials have reported on the long-term follow-up of single and double row fixation in arthroscopic cuff repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term functional outcomes of single-row and double-row suture techniques for repair of the rotator cuff 10-years post-operatively.

Ninety patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomized to receive either single-row or double-row repair. The primary objective was to compare the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) score 10-years post-operatively. Secondary objectives included comparison of the Constant, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores and supraspinatus strength between groups. Out of 90 patients originally randomized, 57 returned for the long-term 10-year follow-up.

Baseline demographic data did not differ between groups. The WORC score was not significantly different between groups at long-term follow-up (p=0.13). No statistical differences were observed between groups for the Constant (p=0.51), ASES (p=0.48) scores, or strength scores (p=0.93). A significant improvement was observed between pre-operative and the final 10-year follow-up. There were no differences observed in all outcomes between two and 10-years post-operatively.

No statistically significant differences in functional or quality of life outcomes were identified between single-row and double-row fixation techniques at long-term follow-up.

There is increasing evidence that patients with ACL reconstruction using ipsilateral graft harvest are at greater risk of rupture (12.5%) on their contralateral compared to their surgical side (7.9%). The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate patients from a previous study comparing ipsi- versus contralateral graft harvest to compare ACL rupture rate at a minimum 10 year follow-up.

An attempt to contact all participants from a previously published study was made to invite them to return for a follow-up. The assessment included an International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Clinical Assessment (IKDC), isokinetic concentric knee flexion and extension strength testing, as well as the ACL-Quality of life (ACL-QOL). A chart review was conducted to identify or confirm subsequent ipsi- or contralateral knee surgeries.

In patients with ipsilateral graft, 3/34 (8.8%) re-ruptured and 3/34 (8.8%) had contralateral rupture. In the contralateral group, 1/28 (3.6%) re-ruptured and 2/28 (7.1%) had contralateral rupture. The relative risk (RR) of re-rupture with ipsilateral graft was 2.47 compared to using the contralateral site (p=0.42). RR of rupture on the contralateral side when ipsilateral graft was used was 1.23 compared to the alternate approach. Current contact information was unavailable for 21 patients. Of the 47 remaining, 37 were consented (79%). No difference in the ACL-QOL between groups (ipsilateral 68.4±24.4, contralateral 80.1±16.0, p=0.17) was observed. There were no differences in knee flexion strength between groups (peak torque flexion affected leg: ipsilateral 77.8nm/kg±27.4, contralateral: 90.0 nm/kg±35.1; p=0.32; Unaffected leg: ipsilateral: 83.3 nm/kg±30.2 contralateral 81.7 nm/kg±24.4; p= 0.89).

This study suggests that using the contralateral hamstring in ACL rupture is not associated with an increase in ACL rupture on either side. The risk of ACL injury was low in all limbs; therefore, a larger study would be required to definitively state that graft side had no impact.

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.

Management of the pathologic long-head biceps tendon remains controversial. Biceps tenotomy is a simple intervention but may result in visible deformity and subjective cramping. Comparatively, biceps tenodesis is technically challenging, and has increased operative times, and a more prolonged recovery. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of popeye deformity following biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis, identify predictors for developing a deformity, and compare subjective and objective outcomes between those that have one and those that do not.

Data for this study were collected as part of a randomized clinical trial comparing tenodesis versus tenotomy in the treatment of lesions of the long head of biceps tendon. Patients 18 years of age or older with an arthroscopy confirmed biceps lesion were randomized to one of these two techniques. The primary outcome measure for this sub-study was the rate of a popeye deformity at 24-months post-operative as determined by an evaluator blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes were patient reported presence/absence of a popeye deformity, satisfaction with the appearance of their arm, as well as pain and cramping on a VAS. Isometric elbow flexion and supination strength were also measured. Interrater reliability (Cohen's kappa) was calculated between patient and evaluator on the presence of a deformity, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors of its occurrence. Linear regression was performed to identify if age, gender, or BMI were predictive of satisfaction in appearance if a deformity was present.

Fifty-six participants were randomly assigned to each group of which 42 in the tenodesis group and 45 in the tenotomy group completed a 24-month follow-up. The incidence of popeye deformity was 9.5% (4/42) in the tenodesis group and 33% (15/45) in the tenotomy group (18 male, 1 female) with a relative risk of 3.5 (p=0.016). There was strong interrater agreement between evaluator and patient perceived deformity (kappa=0.636; p<0.001). Gender tended towards being a significant predictor of having a popeye with males having 6.6 greater odds (p=0.090). BMI also tended towards significance with lower BMI predictive of popeye deformity (OR 1.21; p=0.051). Age was not predictive (p=0.191). Mean (SD) satisfaction score regarding the appearance of their popeye deformity was 7.3 (2.6). Age was a significant predictor, with lower age associated with decreased satisfaction (F=14.951, adjusted r2=0.582, p=0.004), but there was no association with gender (p=0.083) or BMI (p=0.949). There were no differences in pain, cramping, or strength between those who had a popeye deformity and those who did not.

The risk of developing a popeye deformity was 3.5 times higher after tenotomy compared to tenodesis. Male gender and lower BMI tended towards being predictive of having a deformity; however, those with a high BMI may have had popeye deformities that were not as visually apparent to an examiner as those with a lower BMI. Younger patients were significantly less satisfied with a deformity despite no difference in functional outcomes at 24 months. Thus, biceps tenodesis may be favored in younger patients with low BMI to mitigate the risk of an unsatisfactory popeye deformity.

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.