Background: Treatment of superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) tears remains controversial, particularly in older age groups. Repair, debridement, biceps tenodesis, tenotomy, and observation have been recommended depending on patient characteristics, but there have not been any large epidemiologic studies investigating treatment trends.
Purpose: To investigate current trends in SLAP repair across time, gender, age, and regions in the United States.
Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study.
Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29807) were identified using a publicly available national database of insurance records (PearlDiver Patient Records Database) during years 2004 through 2009. Factors identified for each patient included gender, age group, and region in the United States. Logistic regression analysis and the chi-square test were used for statistical measures.
Results: From 2004 to 2009 there were 25,574 cases of arthroscopic SLAP repair identified, of which 75% were male patients and 25% were female patients. There was a significant rise in cases of SLAP repair from 2004 to 2009 as the incidence of SLAP repair increased from 17.0 for every 10,000 patients with an orthopaedic International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or CPT code in 2004 to 28.1 in 2009 (P < .0001). Age analysis revealed the highest incidence in the 20-29–year (29.1 per 10,000) and 40-49–year (27.8 per 10,000) age groups. Men (37.3 per 10,000) had a significantly higher incidence of repairs than did women (10.7 per 10,000). The West (24.6 per 10,000) and South (24.4 per 10,000) regions also demonstrated a higher incidence than the Midwest (20.5 per 10,000) and Northeast (20.1 per 10,000) regions (P < .0001).
Conclusion: Our analysis illustrates that surgeons are performing significantly more arthroscopic SLAP repairs each year. The highest incidence of repair is in the 20-29– and 40-49–year age groups, and a significant gender difference exists, with men having a threefold higher incidence of repair.
Background: While few comparative studies exist, it has been suggested that open distal clavicle excisions (DCEs) provide inferior results when compared with the all-arthroscopic technique.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the intermediate-term (5-year follow-up) results of patients undergoing arthroscopic versus open DCE for the treatment of recalcitrant acromioclavicular joint pain.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: All patients who underwent an arthroscopic or open DCE between January 1999 and September 2006 were reviewed. Forty-eight patients (49 shoulders; 32 arthroscopic, 17 open) following DCE without significant glenohumeral pathologic changes were included. The mean follow-up for group I (open) and group II (arthroscopic) was 5.3 years and 4.2 years, respectively. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, surgical time, and minimum radiographic acromioclavicular joint distance were calculated. Each patient completed a questionnaire assessing their scar satisfaction, percentage of normal shoulder function, and willingness to have the surgery again. Risk factors for poor outcomes were analyzed.
Results: Arthroscopic patients had significantly less pain (P = .035) by VAS (0.61 ± 1.02) compared with open (1.59 ± 2.15) at final follow-up. There was no significant difference between group I and group II with regard to ASES (87.5 ± 17.6 vs 94.6 ± 8.6), percentage of normal shoulder function (89.7% ± 12.5 vs 92.9% ± 8.6), average operative time (53.1 minutes vs 48 minutes), or radiographic resection distance (12.8 ± 2.1 mm vs 9.5 ± 2.9 mm). In the open group, patients with 16 of 17 shoulders were satisfied with their scar and 100% would do it again. In the arthroscopic group, patients with 31 of 32 shoulders (97%) were both satisfied and would have the surgery again.
Conclusion: Open and arthroscopic DCE are both effective surgeries to treat recalcitrant acromioclavicular joint pain. At intermediate-term follow-up, they provide similarly good to excellent results with regard to patient satisfaction and shoulder function. Although both are effective treatments, less residual pain was found using the arthroscopic technique.
