PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical and subjective difference between transtendon repair or complete/repair in two homogeneous groups of patients affected by deep partial articular supraspinatus tear. METHODS:Seventy-four patients were randomized in two groups of 37 patients each. The first group (A) was treated with arthroscopic transtendon repair while the second group (B) was treated with an arthroscopic completion of the tear and formal repair. All the patients were revaluated at a minimum 2 years of follow-up with Constant score and Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). RESULTS:Constant score improved by a mean value of 25 (95 % CI 21-28) (p < 0.0001) and of 29 (95 % CI 26-31) (p < 0.0001), respectively; VAS score decreased by a mean value of 3.4 (95 % CI 2.9-3.9) (p < 0.0001) and of 3.6 (95 % CI 3.3-4.0) (p < 0.0001), respectively. The improvement was higher in both groups for the ADL, and in Group B, the improvement in strength was higher than in Group A. There were no statistical differences between the two different techniques. CONCLUSION: Both repairing techniques of deep partial supraspinatus tear provide good results in terms of function and pain. There were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical and subjective difference between transtendon repair or complete/repair in two homogeneous groups of patients affected by deep partial articular supraspinatus tear. METHODS: Seventy-four patients were randomized in two groups of 37 patients each. The first group (A) was treated with arthroscopic transtendon repair while the second group (B) was treated with an arthroscopic completion of the tear and formal repair. All the patients were revaluated at a minimum 2 years of follow-up with Constant score and Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Constant score improved by a mean value of 25 (95 % CI 21-28) (p < 0.0001) and of 29 (95 % CI 26-31) (p < 0.0001), respectively; VAS score decreased by a mean value of 3.4 (95 % CI 2.9-3.9) (p < 0.0001) and of 3.6 (95 % CI 3.3-4.0) (p < 0.0001), respectively. The improvement was higher in both groups for the ADL, and in Group B, the improvement in strength was higher than in Group A. There were no statistical differences between the two different techniques. CONCLUSION: Both repairing techniques of deep partial supraspinatus tear provide good results in terms of function and pain. There were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.
Authors: Stephen F Brockmeier; Christopher C Dodson; Seth C Gamradt; Struan H Coleman; David W Altchek Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Alessandro Castagna; Giacomo Delle Rose; Marco Conti; Stephen J Snyder; Mario Borroni; Raffaele Garofalo Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Graeme Matthewson; Cara J Beach; Atiba A Nelson; Jarret M Woodmass; Yohei Ono; Richard S Boorman; Ian K Y Lo; Gail M Thornton Journal: Adv Orthop Date: 2015-06-11