Risk Factors for Revision Surgery After Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Repair: A National Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data regarding risk factors for revision surgery after superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair are limited to institutional series. PURPOSE: To define risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair among patients in a large national database. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A national insurance database was queried for patients undergoing arthroscopic SLAP repair (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29807) for the diagnosis of a SLAP tear. Patients without a CPT modifier for laterality were excluded. Revision surgery was defined as (1) subsequent ipsilateral SLAP repair (CPT 29807), (2) ipsilateral arthroscopic debridement for the diagnosis of a SLAP tear (CPT 29822 or 29823, with diagnosis code 840.7), (3) subsequent ipsilateral arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (CPT 29828), (4) subsequent ipsilateral open biceps tenodesis (CPT 23430), and (5) subsequent biceps tenotomy (CPT 23405). Multivariable binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair, including patient demographics/comorbidities, concomitant diagnoses, and concomitant procedures performed. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, and P values were calculated. The estimated financial impact of revision surgery was also calculated. RESULTS: There were 4751 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 121 patients (2.5%) required revision surgery after SLAP repair. Regression analysis identified numerous risk factors for revision surgery, including age >40 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P = .045), female sex (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8; P = .010), obesity (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.2; P = .001), smoking (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.4; P < .0001), and diagnosis of biceps tendinitis (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 3.0-4.2; P < .0001) or long head of the biceps tearing (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 4.1-6.3; P < .0001) at or before the time of surgery. Concomitant rotator cuff repair and distal clavicle excision were not significant risk factors for revision surgery. The cost of revision surgery averaged almost $9000. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for revision surgery after SLAP repair include age >40 years, female sex, obesity, smoking, and diagnosis of biceps tendinitis or long head of the biceps tearing. The diagnosis of biceps tendinitis (OR, 3.5) or long head of the biceps tearing (OR, 5.1) at or before the time of surgery was an especially significant risk factor for revision surgery. The high cost of revision surgery highlights the importance of appropriate indications to avoid the need for subsequent procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".