Biceps Tenodesis Versus Superior Labral Anterior and Posterior (SLAP) Lesion Repair for the Treatment of SLAP Lesion in Overhead Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

Superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions are common injuries in overhead athletes. As a surgical treatment for SLAP lesions, SLAP repair has been traditionally performed. Recently, biceps tenodesis has been performed as an alternative treatment option; however, there is no review for outcome comparisons between these 2 procedures in overhead athletes.

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis, especially in overhead athletes with SLAP lesions.

Study Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Studies that had a minimum follow-up of 2 years, included only patients with SLAP lesions without other major shoulder pathologies, and included only patients who engaged in overhead sports were included. The functional outcomes of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 332 articles were identified, and 13 were included in the systematic review. Even though the postoperative ASES scores were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 91.71-96.75, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 85.47-94.46, I² = 16.3; P = .085) The rate of return to sport and the return to preinjury level of sport were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group; however, in meta-analysis these factors did not reach statistical significance (return to sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.66-0.91, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.68-0.93, I² = 70.23; P = .94) (return to preinjury level of sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.61-0.89, I² = 17.78; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.53-0.82, I² = 58.07; P = .37). The biceps tenodesis group showed a lower complication rate compared with the SLAP repair group without statistical significance (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.013-0.145, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.049-0.143, I² = 0.00; P = .25).

Conclusion:

The results of biceps tenodesis, compared with SLAP repair, were not inferior in the surgical treatment of overhead athletes with SLAP lesions with regard to the ASES score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate. Further high-level, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm this result.