Search

Background: A multicenter, double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) to Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) reported benefits of remplissage in reducing recurrent instability at 2 years postoperative. The ongoing benefits beyond this time point are yet to be explored. Purpose: To (1) compare medium-term (3 to 9 years) outcomes of these previously randomized patients undergoing isolated Bankart repair (NO REMP) or Bankart repair with remplissage (REMP) to manage recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability; (2) examine the failure rate, overall recurrent instability, and reoperation rate. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Recruitment and randomization for the original randomized trial occurred between 2011 and 2017. Patients ≥14 years diagnosed with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability with an engaging Hill-Sachs defect of any size were included. Those with a glenoid defect >15% were excluded. In 2020, participants were contacted by telephone and asked standardized questions regarding ensuing instances of subluxation, dislocation, or reoperation on their study shoulder. "Failure" was defined as a redislocation, and "overall recurrent instability" was described as a redislocation or ≥2 subluxations. Descriptive statistics, relative risk, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were performed. Results: A total of 108 participants were randomized, of whom 50 in the NO REMP group and 52 in the REMP group were included in the analyses in the original study. The mean number of months from surgery to the final follow-up was 49.3 and 53.8 months for the NO REMP and REMP groups, respectively. Failure rates were 22% (11/50) in the NO REMP group versus 8% (4/52) in the REMP group. Rates of overall recurrent instability were 30% (15/50) in the NO REMP group versus 10% (5/52) in the REMP group. Survival curves were significantly different, favoring REMP in both scenarios. Conclusion: For the treatment of traumatic recurrent anterior shoulder instability with a Hill-Sachs lesion and subcritical glenoid bone loss (<15%), a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative recurrent instability was observed with arthroscopic Bankart repair and remplissage than with isolated Bankart repair at a medium-term follow-up (mean of 4 years). Patients who did not receive a remplissage experienced a failure (redislocated) earlier and had a higher rate of revision/reoperation than those who received a concomitant remplissage. Registration: NCT01324531 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The biceps tendon is a known source of shoulder pain. Few high-level studies have attempted to determine whether biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal approach in the treatment of biceps pathology. Most available literature is of lesser scientific quality and shows varying results in the comparison of tenotomy and tenodesis. Purpose: To compare patient-reported and objective clinical results between tenotomy and tenodesis for the treatment of lesions of the long head of the biceps brachii. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years undergoing arthroscopic surgery with intraoperative confirmation of a lesion of the long head of the biceps tendon were randomized. The primary outcome measure was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, while secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) score, elbow and shoulder strength, operative time, complications, and the incidence of revision surgery with each procedure. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed at postoperative 1 year to evaluate the integrity of the procedure in the tenodesis group. Results: A total of 114 participants with a mean age of 57.7 years (range, 34 years to 86 years) were randomized to undergo either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy. ASES and WORC scores improved significantly from pre- to postoperative time points, with a mean difference of 32.3% (P <.001) and 37.3% (P <.001), respectively, with no difference between groups in either outcome from presurgery to postoperative 24 months. The relative risk of cosmetic deformity in the tenotomy group relative to the tenodesis group at 24 months was 3.5 (95% CI, 1.26-9.70; P =.016), with 4 (10%) occurrences in the tenodesis group and 15 (33%) in the tenotomy group. Pain improved from 3 to 24 months postoperatively (P <.001) with no difference between groups. Cramping was not different between groups, nor was any improvement in cramping seen over time. There were no differences between groups in elbow flexion strength or supination strength. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging at postoperative 12 months showed that the tenodesis was intact for all patients. Conclusion: Tenotomy and tenodesis as treatment for lesions of the long head of biceps tendon both result in good subjective outcomes but there is a higher rate of Popeye deformity in the tenotomy group. Registration: NCT01747902 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]