• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg · Jul 2019

    Assessments of activities of daily living after arthroscopic SLAP repair with knot-tying versus knotless suture anchors.

    • Y Reinig, F Welsch, R Hoffmann, D Müller, S Gramlich, S Fischer, K F Schüttler, E Zimmermann, and Thomas Stein.
    • Department of Sporttraumatology-Knee- and Shoulder-Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
    • Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul 1; 139 (7): 981-990.

    PurposeThe clinical influence of knot-tying or knotless anchor systems for the arthroscopic repair of SLAP lesions (superior labrum lesion from anterior to posterior) remain unclear.Materials And MethodsIn a retrospective cohort analysis, 61 of 78 (78.2%) patients with isolated symptomatic SLAP II lesions were examined with a minimum of 24 months after arthroscopic SLAP repair compared to a control group: 28 patients with knot-tying anchors (group I, G1; 28.95 ± 9.48 years, 23 male/5 female), 33 with knotless anchors (group II, G2; 31 ± 10.09 years, 26 male/7 female) and 140 healthy volunteers (group III, G3; 30.9 ± 8.9 years, 109 male/31 female). The clinical assessment included an examination and estimated parameters of ADL (activities of daily living), the CS (Constant score), ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow score), DASH (disability of arm-shoulder hand) and the RS (Rowe score).ResultsThe ROM analysis recorded no significant differences for the external rotation in 0° abduction (G1 63.75° ± 15.55° versus = vs G2 65.30° ± 18.15°; pERG1 vs G2 = 0.72). The clinical outcomes revealed significantly decreased pain status in G1 for the O'brien test and in G2 for the Palm-up test, whereas Yergason test showed similar pain levels (pO'brien = 0.03; ppalm up = 0.02; pyergason > 0.5). The pulley associated rotator cuff tests revealed a significantly inferior force status in G2 compared to G1 (plift-off = 0.005, pJobe = 0.02) whereas the further rotator cuff assessments were equal. In general, the intervention group showed increased pain level and functional deficits compared to the G3. The score analysis detected no significant differences with PCSG1 vs G2, PASESG1 vs G2, PDASHG1 vs G2 and PRSG1 vs G2 all > 0.05 and significant impairments compared to G3 in all scores pG1/G2 vs G3 < 0.05 (CSG1 = 88.28 ± 14.42, CSG2=92.73 ± 9.24, CSG3 = 96.2 ± 4.96; ASESG1 = 81.10 ± 21.69, ASESG2 = 85.35 ± 17.12, ASESG3 = 94.95 ± 10.39,; DASHG1= 35.75 ± 13.44, DASHG2 = 36.03 ± 17.55, DASHG3 = 27.13 ± 6.52; RSG1 = 90.71 ± 9.88, RSG2 = 88.33 ± 11.22, RSG3= 92.96 ± 11.27).ConclusionsThe clinical assessment revealed for both anchor systems similar outcomes but showed general underestimated impairments after the SLAP repair surgery compared to the healthy control. The clinical status only marginally differed between both techniques, wherefore the present assessment of ADL allowed no recommendation of one of these two specific surgery technique for SLAP repair.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…