BackgroundLabral repair and biceps tenodesis are routine operations for superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their efficacy is lacking. We evaluated the effect of labral repair, biceps tenodesis and sham surgery on SLAP lesions.MethodsA double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted with 118 surgical candidates (mean age 40 years), with patient history, clinical symptoms and MRI arthrography indicating an isolated type II SLAP lesion. Patients were randomly assigned to either labral repair (n=40), biceps tenodesis (n=39) or sham surgery (n=39) if arthroscopy revealed an isolated SLAP II lesion. Primary outcomes at 6 and 24 months were clinical Rowe score ranging from 0 to 100 (best possible) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) ranging from 0 (best possible) to 2100. Secondary outcomes were Oxford Instability Shoulder Score, change in main symptoms, EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS), patient satisfaction and complications.ResultsThere were no significant between-group differences at any follow-up in any outcome. Between-group differences in Rowe scores at 2 years were: biceps tenodesis versus labral repair: 1.0 (95% CI −5.4 to 7.4), p=0.76; biceps tenodesis versus sham surgery: 1.6 (95% CI −5.0 to 8.1), p=0.64; and labral repair versus sham surgery: 0.6 (95% CI −5.9 to 7.0), p=0.86. Similar results—no differences between groups—were found for WOSI scores. Postoperative stiffness occurred in five patients after labral repair and in four patients after tenodesis.ConclusionNeither labral repair nor biceps tenodesis had any significant clinical benefit over sham surgery for patients with SLAP II lesions in the population studied.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00586742

Most spinoglenoid cysts resolve, and patient satisfaction can be expected to be high after labral fixation without cyst decompression.

BackgroundHaving an estimate of the measurement error of self-report questionnaires is important both for assessing follow-up results after treatment and when planning intervention studies. Specific questionnaires have been evaluated for patients with shoulder instability, but not in particular for patients with SLAP (superior labral anterior posterior) lesions or recurrent dislocations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement, reliability, and validity of two commonly questionnaires developed for patients with shoulder instability and a generic questionnaire in patients with SLAP lesions or recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations.MethodsSeventy-one patients were included, 33 had recurrent anterior dislocations and 38 had a SLAP lesion. The patients filled in the questionnaires twice at the same time of the day (± 2 hours) with a one week interval between administrations. We tested the Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS) (range 12 to 60), the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (0 to 2100), and the EuroQol: EQ-5D (−0.5 to 1.0) and EQ-VAS (0 to 100). Hypotheses were defined to test validity.ResultsICC ranged from 0.89 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.93) to 0.92 (0.87 to 0.95) for OISS, WOSI, and EQ-VAS and was 0.66 (0.50 to 0.77) for EQ-5D. The limits of agreement for the scores were: -7.8 to 8.4 for OISS; -339.9 to 344.8 for WOSI; -0.4 to 0.4 for EQ-5D; and −17.2 and 16.2 for EQ-VAS. All questionnaires reflect the construct that was measured. The correlation between WOSI and OISS was 0.73 and ranged from 0.49 to 0.54 between the shoulder questionnaires and the generic questionnaires. The divergent validity was acceptable, convergent validity failed, and known group validity was acceptable only for OISS.ConclusionMeasurement errors and limitations in validity should be considered when change scores of OISS and WOSI are interpreted in patients with SLAP lesions or recurrent shoulder dislocations. EQ-5D is not recommended as a single outcome.

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

No abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the correlation of preoperative and intraoperative factors with physical function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

IntroductionOne in five patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) experience unchanged or worse pain and physical function 1 year after surgery. Identifying risk factors for unfavourable outcomes is necessary to develop tailored interventions to minimise risk. There is a need to review more current literature with updated methodology that addresses the limitations of earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We present a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols compliant protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of chronic pain and impaired function after TKA.Methods and analysisThis review will include prospective longitudinal observational studies, or randomised trials (including cluster and crossover designs) that report arm-wise predictors of chronic postsurgical pain or impaired physical function at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months. A comprehensive literature search of studies published between 2000 and 2019 will be performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PEDro. Blinded assessment with consensus agreement will be applied for inclusion of studies, data extraction and assessment of bias risk (Quality in Prognosis Studies tool). The co-primary outcomes, pain and impaired function, at 12 months after TKA will be analysed separately. Estimates of association between each outcome and any preoperative or intraoperative factor that may predict chronic pain or impaired physical function will be extracted from the included studies, where possible. For randomised studies, results will only be extracted from TKA arms (or the first period of crossover trials). Estimates of association from the primary evidence will be synthesised narratively, and quantitatively using multivariate meta-analysis to provide ‘pooled’ estimates of association. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Certainty of evidence for each predictor will be derived from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are associated with this project. The results from this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079069.

Background: Evaluation of patients with superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions requires outcome measures validated for the purpose. The present study aimed to evaluate the responsiveness of the Rowe score, Oxford Instability Shoulder Score (OISS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and EuroQol (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) in patients treated for SLAP lesions. Methods: Eighty-nine patients were included: 34 had arthroscopic labral repair, 28 had mini-open biceps tenodesis and 27 had physical treatment. The outcome measures were administrated before treatment and after 6 months. Responsiveness was evaluated using standardized response mean (SRM), area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC), reliable chance proportion (RCP) statistics and hypothesis testing. Minimal clinically important change (MCIC) estimates were reported. Results: All outcome measures had high values of SRM (0.86-1.92). RCPs for the improved group were 68% to 79% for OISS, WOSI and Rowe score, and 15% to 49% for EuroQol. ROCAUC was >0.70 for all outcomes. MCIC estimates were 8 and 10 for OISS; 451 and 569 for WOSI; 17 and 18 for Rowe score; 0.39 and 0.53 for EQ-5D; and 35 and 41 for EQ-VAS. Responsiveness tested with hypotheses favours the shoulder-specific outcomes. Conclusions: OISS, WOSI and Rowe score are more responsive than EuroQol in evaluation of patients with SLAP lesions.