Jay D Keener1, Jason E Hsu2, Karen Steger-May3, Sharlene A Teefey4, Aaron M Chamberlain5, Ken Yamaguchi5. 1. Shoulder and Elbow Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: keener@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Shoulder and Elbow Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of rotator cuff tear size progression in degenerative rotator cuff tears and to compare tear progression risks for tears with and without anterior supraspinatus tendon disruption. METHODS: Asymptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears with minimum 2-year follow-up were examined with annual shoulder ultrasound examinations. Integrity of the anterior 3 mm of the supraspinatus tendon determined classification of cable-intact vs. cable-disrupted tears. Tear enlargement was defined as an increase of 5 mm or more in width. Tear propagation direction was calculated from measured changes in tear width in reference to the biceps tendon on serial ultrasound examinations. RESULTS: The cohort included 139 full-thickness tears with a mean subject age of 63.3 years and follow-up duration of 6.0 years. Ninety-six (69.1%) of the tears were considered cable intact. Cable-disrupted tears were larger at baseline (median, 19.0 mm vs. 10.0 mm; P < .0001) than cable-intact tears. There was no difference in the risk of enlargement (52.1% vs. 67.4%; P = .09) or time to enlargement (3.2 vs. 2.2 years; P = .37) for cable-intact compared with cable-disrupted tears. There was no difference in the magnitude of enlargement for cable-intact and cable-disrupted tears (median, 7.0 mm vs.9.0 mm; P = .18). Cable-intact tears propagated a median of 5 mm anteriorly and 4 mm posteriorly, whereas cable-disrupted tears propagated posteriorly. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of degenerative rotator cuff tears spare the anterior supraspinatus tendon. Although tears classified as cable disrupted are larger at baseline than cable-intact tears, tear enlargement risks are similar for each tear type.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine patterns of rotator cuff tear size progression in degenerative rotator cuff tears and to compare tear progression risks for tears with and without anterior supraspinatus tendon disruption. METHODS: Asymptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears with minimum 2-year follow-up were examined with annual shoulder ultrasound examinations. Integrity of the anterior 3 mm of the supraspinatus tendon determined classification of cable-intact vs. cable-disrupted tears. Tear enlargement was defined as an increase of 5 mm or more in width. Tear propagation direction was calculated from measured changes in tear width in reference to the biceps tendon on serial ultrasound examinations. RESULTS: The cohort included 139 full-thickness tears with a mean subject age of 63.3 years and follow-up duration of 6.0 years. Ninety-six (69.1%) of the tears were considered cable intact. Cable-disrupted tears were larger at baseline (median, 19.0 mm vs. 10.0 mm; P < .0001) than cable-intact tears. There was no difference in the risk of enlargement (52.1% vs. 67.4%; P = .09) or time to enlargement (3.2 vs. 2.2 years; P = .37) for cable-intact compared with cable-disrupted tears. There was no difference in the magnitude of enlargement for cable-intact and cable-disrupted tears (median, 7.0 mm vs.9.0 mm; P = .18). Cable-intact tears propagated a median of 5 mm anteriorly and 4 mm posteriorly, whereas cable-disrupted tears propagated posteriorly. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of degenerative rotator cuff tears spare the anterior supraspinatus tendon. Although tears classified as cable disrupted are larger at baseline than cable-intact tears, tear enlargement risks are similar for each tear type.
Authors: H Mike Kim; Nirvikar Dahiya; Sharlene A Teefey; William D Middleton; Georgia Stobbs; Karen Steger-May; Ken Yamaguchi; Jay D Keener Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: H Mike Kim; Nirvikar Dahiya; Sharlene A Teefey; Jay D Keener; Leesa M Galatz; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jay D Keener; Leesa M Galatz; Sharlene A Teefey; William D Middleton; Karen Steger-May; Georgia Stobbs-Cucchi; Rebecca Patton; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mena M Mesiha; Kathleen A Derwin; Scott C Sibole; Ahmet Erdemir; Jesse A McCarron Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jonah Hebert-Davies; Sharlene A Teefey; Karen Steger-May; Aaron M Chamberlain; William Middleton; Kathryn Robinson; Ken Yamaguchi; Jay D Keener Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Timothy G Baumer; Jack Dischler; Veronica Mende; Roger Zauel; Marnix van Holsbeeck; Daniel S Siegal; George Divine; Vasilios Moutzouros; Michael J Bey Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; Dane Salazar; Karen Steger-May; Aaron M Chamberlain; Ken Yamaguchi; Jay D Keener Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 4.176