We have located links that may give you full text access.
The effect of age on the outcomes of arthroscopic repair of type II superior labral anterior and posterior lesions.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 2010 November
BACKGROUND: The majority of clinical outcome studies of type II superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) repair assess patients younger than age 40. Biceps tenotomy or tenodesis is often recommended for patients older than age 40 with superior labrum-biceps complex injury.
HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in patient clinical outcomes comparing arthroscopic type II SLAP repair in patients younger or older than age 40.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Fifty-two patients stratified to groups younger than age 40 (21 patients; average age, 32.9 years) and older than age 40 (31 patients; average age, 55.1 years) were identified at a minimum 2-year follow-up (average, 28 months) after type II SLAP repair by a single surgeon using suture anchors. Outcome scores included American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores (ASES), Short Form-12 scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores, and visual analog pain scale.
RESULTS: At follow-up, there was no statistical difference in visual analog pain scale (P = .16), ASES scores (P = .07), Simple Shoulder Test scores (P =.41), Short Form-12 testing, or range of motion testing. Patients older than age 40 noted their shoulder to be 87% of normal; 26 of 31 (84%) were satisfied to completely satisfied, and 28 of 31 (90%) would have the surgery again. Patients younger than 40 noted their shoulder to be approximately 89% of normal; 20 of 21 (95%) were satisfied to completely satisfied, and 18 of 21 (86%) would have the same procedure performed again.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support that arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP repair using suture anchors can yield good to excellent results in patients older and younger than age 40. We found no statistically significant difference in patient outcome scores, satisfaction levels, or willingness to have the same procedure again when comparing arthroscopic SLAP repair in patients younger or older than age 40.
HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in patient clinical outcomes comparing arthroscopic type II SLAP repair in patients younger or older than age 40.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Fifty-two patients stratified to groups younger than age 40 (21 patients; average age, 32.9 years) and older than age 40 (31 patients; average age, 55.1 years) were identified at a minimum 2-year follow-up (average, 28 months) after type II SLAP repair by a single surgeon using suture anchors. Outcome scores included American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores (ASES), Short Form-12 scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores, and visual analog pain scale.
RESULTS: At follow-up, there was no statistical difference in visual analog pain scale (P = .16), ASES scores (P = .07), Simple Shoulder Test scores (P =.41), Short Form-12 testing, or range of motion testing. Patients older than age 40 noted their shoulder to be 87% of normal; 26 of 31 (84%) were satisfied to completely satisfied, and 28 of 31 (90%) would have the surgery again. Patients younger than 40 noted their shoulder to be approximately 89% of normal; 20 of 21 (95%) were satisfied to completely satisfied, and 18 of 21 (86%) would have the same procedure performed again.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support that arthroscopic treatment of isolated type II SLAP repair using suture anchors can yield good to excellent results in patients older and younger than age 40. We found no statistically significant difference in patient outcome scores, satisfaction levels, or willingness to have the same procedure again when comparing arthroscopic SLAP repair in patients younger or older than age 40.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app