Is arthroscopic repair superior to biceps tenotomy and tenodesis for type II SLAP lesions? A meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies

• Published in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol. 14; no. 1; p. 48
• Main Authors: Ren, Yi-Ming, Duan, Yuan-Hui, Sun, Yun-Bo, Yang, Tao, Hou, Wei-Yu, Tian, Meng-Qiang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 13-02-2019; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Analysis; Arthroscopy; Bias; Biceps tendon; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Future predictions; Intervention; Labrum; Meta; Meta-analysis; Observational studies; Orthopedic surgery; Orthopedics; Retirement benefits; Rotator cuff; Sensitivity analysis; SLAP lesion; Statistical analysis; Studies; Systematic Review; Tenotomy; Meta; Biceps tendon; Arthroscopy; Tenotomy; Rotator cuff; SLAP lesion
• ISSN: 1749-799X; 1749-799X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1096-y

Labral repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are routine operations for type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their superiority is lacking. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention.
The eight studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.
Eight studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. The pooled results of UCLA score, SST score, and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of ASES score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention, and arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results, and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias.
Both arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis interventions had benefits in type II SLAP lesions. Arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment provides better clinical outcome in ASES score and satisfaction rate and comparable complications compared with arthroscopic repair treatment. In view of the heterogeneity and confounding factors, whether these conclusions are applicable should be further determined in future studies.