PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between an acromion index (AI) and the size of a rotator cuff tear. The hypothesis of our study was that an AI will be higher in patients with a full-thickness tear than in patients with a partial-thickness articular-side tear, and that it can be used as a predictor for the size of a rotator cuff tear. METHODS: We included 284 patients who had been diagnosed with rotator cuff tears and had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at our institute. All patients were divided into five distinct groups (partial-thickness articular side tear, and four subgroups of full-thickness tears) depending on the size of the rotator cuff tear on arthroscopy. In each patient, an AI was measured on the pre-operative oblique coronal MR images and then analysed to determine the difference between groups. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the partial-thickness articular side rotator cuff tear and large-to-massive rotator cuff tear groups (p < 0.01), and the mean value of an AI was highest in the large-sized full-thickness tear group. The AI of the partial-thickness articular-side rotator cuff tear group was statistically different from the large-to-massive rotator cuff tear groups. CONCLUSIONS: The AI can be a predictor which can differentiate a partial-thickness articular-side tear and a large-to-massive rotator cuff tear pre-operatively. However the AI could not provide useful guidance on predicting the differences in tear size in full-thickness tear patients. We suggest that a high AI can be one of the associated factors for progression to large-to-massive rotator cuff tears in a rotator cuff disease.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between an acromion index (AI) and the size of a rotator cuff tear. The hypothesis of our study was that an AI will be higher in patients with a full-thickness tear than in patients with a partial-thickness articular-side tear, and that it can be used as a predictor for the size of a rotator cuff tear. METHODS: We included 284 patients who had been diagnosed with rotator cuff tears and had undergone arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at our institute. All patients were divided into five distinct groups (partial-thickness articular side tear, and four subgroups of full-thickness tears) depending on the size of the rotator cuff tear on arthroscopy. In each patient, an AI was measured on the pre-operative oblique coronal MR images and then analysed to determine the difference between groups. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the partial-thickness articular side rotator cuff tear and large-to-massive rotator cuff tear groups (p < 0.01), and the mean value of an AI was highest in the large-sized full-thickness tear group. The AI of the partial-thickness articular-side rotator cuff tear group was statistically different from the large-to-massive rotator cuff tear groups. CONCLUSIONS: The AI can be a predictor which can differentiate a partial-thickness articular-side tear and a large-to-massive rotator cuff tear pre-operatively. However the AI could not provide useful guidance on predicting the differences in tear size in full-thickness tear patients. We suggest that a high AI can be one of the associated factors for progression to large-to-massive rotator cuff tears in a rotator cuff disease.
Authors: J P Iannotti; M B Zlatkin; J L Esterhai; H Y Kressel; M K Dalinka; K P Spindler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 1991-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Patricio Melean; Sven Lichtenberg; Fredy Montoya; Stephan Riedmann; Petra Magosch; Peter Habermeyer Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Ulrich J Spiegl; Marilee P Horan; Sean W Smith; Charles P Ho; Peter J Millett Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Matthijs Jacxsens; Shireen Y Elhabian; Sarah E Brady; Peter N Chalmers; Andreas M Mueller; Robert Z Tashjian; Heath B Henninger Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 3.494