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

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.

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.

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 IV, systematic review of Level II and Level IV studies.

Polls results

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

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (2/2)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

50% Yes (1/2)
50% No (1/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/2)
100% No (2/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/2)
0% Level 2 (0/2)
50% Level 3 (1/2)
50% Level 4 (1/2)
0% Level 5 (0/2)