PURPOSE:
To determine if cyst management is necessary in the setting of SLAP lesions with concomitant paralabral ganglion cysts.

METHODS:
We performed a systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including all studies that met inclusion criteria from January 1975 to July 2015. We included patients with a SLAP II-VII lesion and a concomitant paralabral ganglion cyst who underwent arthroscopic labral repair with or without cyst decompression. Patients with follow-up of less than 3 months, a SLAP I lesion, or who underwent concomitant cuff repair were excluded. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scoring system was used to quantify the potential bias in each study. Outcome measures reported were provided in a table format and a subjective analysis was performed.

RESULTS:
Nineteen studies were included yielding a total of 160 patients: 66 patients treated with repair alone [R] and 94 patients with additional cyst decompression or excision [R+D]. The VAS, Rowe, and Constant scores were excellent and similar in both groups. The mean VAS was 0.6 in [R] and ranged between 0 and 2 in [R+D] (0.5, 0, 2, 0.2). The mean Rowe scores were 94 and 98 in [R] and 95 in [R+D]. The mean Constant scores were 97 in [R] and ranged between 87 and 98 in [R+D] (98, 87, 92, 94). In total, 5 of 90 patients were unable to return to work and 2 of 45 were unable to return to sport. All 15 patients who had follow-up electromyographies displayed resolution, and in the 115 patients with follow-up MRIs, 12 did not have complete resolution of the cyst.

CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, the studies subjectively analyzed in this review suggest that both groups have excellent results. The results do not show any advantages from performing decompression.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Level IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
66% Article relates to my practice (2/3)
33% Article does not relate to my practice (1/3)
0% Undecided (0/3)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

33% Yes (1/3)
33% No (1/3)
33% Undecided (1/3)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/3)
66% No (2/3)
33% Undecided (1/3)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/3)
0% Level 2 (0/3)
66% Level 3 (2/3)
33% Level 4 (1/3)
0% Level 5 (0/3)