Background: Outcomes of arthroscopic type II superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) repairs have been reported with success. However, published data regarding outcomes of revision arthroscopic type II SLAP repairs are lacking.
Hypothesis: Outcomes of revision arthroscopic type II SLAP repairs are inferior to those of primary repairs.
Study design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had undergone revision arthroscopic type II SLAP repairs at our institution. Patients who underwent concomitant rotator cuff repairs or labral repairs for instability were excluded. Twelve patients were contacted, and the following outcome data were prospectively gathered: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient satisfaction level, return to work, return to sports, and physical examination. Demographics and intraoperative report data were also collected from the charts.
Results: The mean age at the time of revision arthroscopic type II SLAP repairs was 32.6 years (range, 19-67 years) with a mean follow-up of 50.5 months (range, 8-81 months). There were 5 workers' compensation patients and 6 overhead athletes. Pain was the chief complaint at the time of initial and revision SLAP repairs. The mean ASES score was 72.5, patient satisfaction level was 6.4 (scale of 0-10), mean return to work was at 57.8% of the previous level, and mean return to sports was at 42.2% of the previous level. In overhead athletes, mean return to sports was at 41.3% of the previous level, and none of the 4 baseball players returned to preinjury level. The mean values for all outcome data and range of motion values were lower in workers' compensation patients. There were no reported complications, but 2 patients required additional arthroscopic surgeries.
Conclusion: Arthroscopic revision type II SLAP repairs yield worse results than primary repairs as reported in the literature, with workers' compensation patients and overhead athletes doing especially worse. A larger prospective study of this relatively rare procedure is needed to better determine which patients may benefit from this procedure.