scholarly journals Management of type II superior labrum anterior posterior lesions: a review of the literature

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinning Li ◽  
Timothy Lin ◽  
Marcus Jager ◽  
Mark D. Price ◽  
Nicola Deangelis ◽  
...  

Superior labrum anterior and posterior lesions were first described in 1985 by Andrews et al. and later classified into four types by Synder et al. The most prevalent is type II which is fraying of the superior glenoid labrum with detachment of the biceps anchor. Superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions can also be associated with other shoulder pathology. Both MRI and MRA can be utilized in making the diagnosis with the coronal images being the most sensitive. The mechanism of injury can be either repetitive stress or acute trauma with the superior labrum most vulnerable to injury during the late cocking phase of throwing. A combination of the modified dynamic labral shear and O’Brien test can be used clinically in making the diagnosis of SLAP lesion. However, the most sensitive and specific test used to diagnosis specifically a type II SLAP lesion is the Biceps Load Test II. The management of type II SLAP lesions is controversial and dependent on patient characteristics. In the young high demanding overhead athlete, repair of the type II lesion is recommended to prevent glenohumeral instability. In middle-aged patients (age 25-45), repair of the type II SLAP lesion with concomitant treatment of other shoulder pathology resulted in better functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, patients who had a distinct traumatic event resulting in the type II SLAP tear did better functionally than patients who did not have the traumatic event when the lesion was repaired. In the older patient population (age over 45 years), minimum intervention (debridement, biceps tenodesis/tenotomy) to the type II SLAP lesion results in excellent patient satisfaction and outcomes.

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Sung Hyun Lee ◽  
Min Su Joo ◽  
Kyeong Hoon Lim ◽  
Jeong Woo Kim

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate results of superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repairs and debridement of type II SLAP lesions combined with Bankart lesions.METHODS: Between 2010 and 2014, total 58 patients with anterior shoulder instability due to a Bankart lesion combined with a type II SLAP lesion were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: group C consisted of 30 patients, each with a communicated Bankart and type II SLAP lesion and group NC consisted of 28 patients, each with a non-communicated Bankart and type II SLAP lesion. Bankart repairs were performed for all patients. SLAP lesions were repaired in group C and debrided in group NC. Clinical results were analysed to compare groups C and NC by using the visual analogue scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant scores, Rowe score for instability and range of motion assessments.RESULTS: The clinical scores were improved in both groups at final follow-up. Also, there were no differences between two groups. No significant difference was found in terms of the range of motion measured at the last follow-up. The number of suture anchors used was significantly higher in group C than in group NC (5.6 vs. 3.8; p=0.021).CONCLUSIONS: In this study, it is considered that Bankart repair and SLAP debridement could be a treatment option in patients with a non-communicated type II SLAP lesion combined with a Bankart lesion (study design: IV, therapeutic study, case series).


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1059-1065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene T.H. Ek ◽  
Lewis L. Shi ◽  
Jeffrey D. Tompson ◽  
Michael T. Freehill ◽  
Jon J.P. Warner

2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 856-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Sandrey

Reference/Citation: Calvert E, Chambers GK, Regan W, Hawkins RH, Leith JM. Special physical examination tests for superior labrum anterior-posterior shoulder injuries are clinically limited and invalid: a diagnostic systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):558–563. Clinical Question: The systematic review focused on diagnostic accuracy studies to determine if evidence was sufficient to support the use of superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) physical examination tests as valid and reliable. The primary question was whether there was sufficient evidence in the published literature to support the use of SLAP physical examination tests as valid and reliable diagnostic test procedures. Data Sources: Studies published in English were identified through database searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database (1970–2004) using the search term SLAP lesions. The medical subject headings of arthroscopy, shoulder joint, and athletic injuries were combined with test or testing, physical examination, and sensitivity and specificity to locate additional sources. Other sources were identified by rereviewing the reference lists of included studies and review articles. Study Selection: Studies were eligible based on the following criteria: (1) published in English, (2) focused on the physical examination of SLAP lesions, and (3) presented original data. A study was excluded if the article was limited to a clinical description of 1 or more special tests without any research focus to provide clinical accuracy data or if it did not focus on the topic. Data Extraction: The abstracts that were located through the search strategies were reviewed, and potentially relevant abstracts were selected. Strict epidemiologic methods were used to obtain and collate all relevant studies; the authors developed a study questionnaire to record study name, year of publication, study design, sample size, and statistics. Validity of the diagnostic test study was determined by applying the 5 criteria proposed by Calvert et al. If the study met the inclusion and validity criteria, 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio reported. No specific information was provided about the procedure if the reviewers disagreed on how the evaluation criteria were applied. Main Results: The specific search criteria led to the identification of 29 full-text articles. The studies were reviewed, and inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. This resulted in 14 excluded studies and 15 eligible studies for analysis. Of the 15 eligible studies, 1 evaluated only a single physical examination test for a SLAP lesion or biceps tendon injury, and 10 studies evaluated 2 to 6 physical examination tests for a SLAP lesion or biceps tendon injury. Nine studies reported sensitivities and specificities greater than 75%, 4 had sensitivities less than 75%, 3 had specificities less than 75%, 1 did not report sensitivity, and 2 did not report specificities. When validity was assessed for those 15 papers, only 1 study that evaluated the biceps tendon met the 5 critical appraisal criteria of Calvert et al and calculated 95% confidence intervals. When the Speed and Yergason tests were each compared with the gold standard (arthroscopy), the confidence intervals for the positive and negative likelihood ratios spanned 1. This indicated that the test result is unlikely to change the odds of having or not having the condition, respectively. Conclusions: The literature currently used as a reference for teaching in medical schools and continuing education lacks the necessary validity to help rule in or out a SLAP lesion or biceps tendon involvement. Based on the results from the systematic review conducted by Calvert et al, no tests clinically diagnose a SLAP lesion. This is a cause for concern as magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance arthrography, which are frequently used to assess a possible SLAP lesion, may also have diagnostic flaws and may be cost prohibitive. Performing arthroscopy on every patient to rule the condition in or out is unethical, especially if a SLAP lesion is not present. More rigorous validity studies should be conducted for SLAP lesion physical examination tests using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool or Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document