Complications and Return to Activity After Arthroscopic Repair of Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions: A Systematic Review Comparing Knotted Versus Knotless Suture Anchors. Issue 4 (20th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Knapik, Derrick M.; Kolaczko, Jensen G.; Gillespie, Robert J.; Salata, Michael J.; Voos, James E.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 8:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-04-20
• Subjects: labrum -- tear -- biceps -- repair -- anchor -- arthroscopic surgery -- shoulder; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967120911361
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Superior labral anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears are one of the most common injuries to the shoulder, with the type II variant representing the most frequently encountered subtype. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to better understand outcomes after arthroscopic repair of isolated type II SLAP lesions using knotted versus knotless anchors based on implant number, implant location, patient position, and portal position. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review investigating all studies in the literature between January 2000 and June 2019 reporting on patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for isolated type II SLAP lesions using knotted versus knotless suture anchors was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and Embase databases. Results: A total of 234 patients undergoing isolated arthroscopic repair of type II SLAP lesions using suture anchors were identified, with 76% (179/234) treated using knotted anchors versus 24% (55/234) treated using knotless anchors. Complications were reported in 12% of patients treated using knotted anchors versus no patients treated using knotless anchors ( P = .008). The incidence of complications for knotted anchor repair was not significantly affected by patient position ( P = .22) or portal position ( P = .19). Using multiple regression analysis, we found no significant association with the incidence of complications when analyzing for anchor design ( R 2 = 0.02; P = .06) or anchor position ( R 2 = 0.02; P = .92). No significant difference in return-to-activity timing was appreciated based on anchor type ( P = .28), patient position ( P = .98), or portal position ( P = .97) in patients treated using knotted anchors. Conclusion: Patients treated using knotted anchors were significantly more likely to experience a postoperative complication compared with patients treated using knotless anchors after arthroscopic repair of isolated type II SLAP lesions. Despite the increased incidence of a postoperative complication after knotted anchor fixation compared with knotless anchor fixation, multiple regression analysis showed that anchor design and anchor position were not significantly predictive of the incidence of complications. Given the increasing popularity of knotless anchor fixation, further study on the long-term outcomes after knotless repair for isolated type II SLAP lesions is warranted.