Anouk J Fermont1, Nienke Wolterbeek2, Ronald N Wessel2, Jean-Pierre Baeyens3, Rob A de Bie4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands; Medicort Sports and Orthopedic Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: anouk@fermont.eu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 3. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium; University College Thim van der Laan, Landquart, Switzerland. 4. Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies concerning prognostic factors of recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair mostly focus on tendon integrity or functional recovery as an outcome. Little is known about how they influence quality of life after surgery. We therefore tried to identify prognostic factors having an impact on quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This study included 30 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We assessed Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index as primary outcome and RAND-36, Constant-Murley score, and a shoulder hindrance score as secondary outcomes. Patients were repeatedly measured: once preoperatively and 4 times postoperatively. Preoperative range of motion, obesity, fatty infiltration, and cuff retraction were preselected as prognostic factors. RESULTS: Patients were significantly improved at 3 months and 6 months after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In multiple regression analysis, none of the preselected factors could be identified as a prognostic factor influencing quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (measured with the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index). For the outcome variables RAND-36 (6 months, 1 year) and shoulder hindrance score (1 year), fatty infiltration Goutallier stages 1 and 2 and retraction grades II, III, and IV were significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Although fatty infiltration and retraction grade predict the RAND-36 and shoulder hindrance score, this study could not support preoperative range of motion, obesity, fatty infiltration, or retraction of the cuff as a prognostic factor for quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This study shows that if selection of patients is done properly, these factors do not influence a successful outcome.
BACKGROUND: Studies concerning prognostic factors of recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair mostly focus on tendon integrity or functional recovery as an outcome. Little is known about how they influence quality of life after surgery. We therefore tried to identify prognostic factors having an impact on quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This study included 30 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We assessed Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index as primary outcome and RAND-36, Constant-Murley score, and a shoulder hindrance score as secondary outcomes. Patients were repeatedly measured: once preoperatively and 4 times postoperatively. Preoperative range of motion, obesity, fatty infiltration, and cuff retraction were preselected as prognostic factors. RESULTS:Patients were significantly improved at 3 months and 6 months after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In multiple regression analysis, none of the preselected factors could be identified as a prognostic factor influencing quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (measured with the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index). For the outcome variables RAND-36 (6 months, 1 year) and shoulder hindrance score (1 year), fatty infiltration Goutallier stages 1 and 2 and retraction grades II, III, and IV were significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Although fatty infiltration and retraction grade predict the RAND-36 and shoulder hindrance score, this study could not support preoperative range of motion, obesity, fatty infiltration, or retraction of the cuff as a prognostic factor for quality of life after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This study shows that if selection of patients is done properly, these factors do not influence a successful outcome.
Authors: Laurent Audigé; Heiner C C Bucher; Soheila Aghlmandi; Thomas Stojanov; David Schwappach; Sabina Hunziker; Christian Candrian; Gregory Cunningham; Holger Durchholz; Karim Eid; Matthias Flury; Bernhard Jost; Alexandre Lädermann; Beat Kaspar Moor; Philipp Moroder; Claudio Rosso; Michael Schär; Markus Scheibel; Christophe Spormann; Thomas Suter; Karl Wieser; Matthias Zumstein; Andreas M Müller Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter K Edwards; Patrick Wai Hang Kwong; Timothy Ackland; Allan Wang; Cyril J Donnelly; Jay R Ebert Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2021-12-01