F A de Boer1, P M van Kampen2, P E Huijsmans2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, HagaZiekenhuis, Sportlaan 600, 2566 MJ, The Hague, The Netherlands. frisodeboer@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, HagaZiekenhuis, Sportlaan 600, 2566 MJ, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty becomes more widely used as a treatment for patients with painful cuff arthropathy. As a part of the deltopectoral approach, the subscapularis tendon, if present, is (partly) detached. There is no consensus on repair of the tendon after placement of the prosthesis. We retrospectively describe the clinical effects of subscapularis tendon reattachment. Our hypothesis was that subscapularis repair has no clinical effects on range of motion and functional outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective clinical study is performed. An Aequalis reverse shoulder prosthesis (Tornier, Montbonnot, France) was placed in 65 patients with a mean age of 73.8 years (range 47-90). In 40 patients (61.5 %), the quality of the tendon was initially insufficient for repair. The subscapularis was repaired in 25 patients (38.5 %). After a mean follow-up of 36 months with a minimum of 12 months, an ultrasound examination of the subscapularis was performed in patients with a repaired tendon. Range of motion, strength, Constant-Murley and Oxford scores were measured. RESULTS: On ultrasound examination, 10 (40 %) out of 25 repaired subscapularis tendons were still sufficient. Postoperatively, range of motion, strength, Constant-Murley and Oxford scores did not differ significantly between repair with present tendon, repair with absent tendon or no repair. CONCLUSION: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty, no significant differences on range of motion, functional outcome scores or strength were found between subscapularis repair or no repair, whether the tendon healed at follow-up or not.
PURPOSE: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty becomes more widely used as a treatment for patients with painful cuff arthropathy. As a part of the deltopectoral approach, the subscapularis tendon, if present, is (partly) detached. There is no consensus on repair of the tendon after placement of the prosthesis. We retrospectively describe the clinical effects of subscapularis tendon reattachment. Our hypothesis was that subscapularis repair has no clinical effects on range of motion and functional outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective clinical study is performed. An Aequalis reverse shoulder prosthesis (Tornier, Montbonnot, France) was placed in 65 patients with a mean age of 73.8 years (range 47-90). In 40 patients (61.5 %), the quality of the tendon was initially insufficient for repair. The subscapularis was repaired in 25 patients (38.5 %). After a mean follow-up of 36 months with a minimum of 12 months, an ultrasound examination of the subscapularis was performed in patients with a repaired tendon. Range of motion, strength, Constant-Murley and Oxford scores were measured. RESULTS: On ultrasound examination, 10 (40 %) out of 25 repaired subscapularis tendons were still sufficient. Postoperatively, range of motion, strength, Constant-Murley and Oxford scores did not differ significantly between repair with present tendon, repair with absent tendon or no repair. CONCLUSION: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty, no significant differences on range of motion, functional outcome scores or strength were found between subscapularis repair or no repair, whether the tendon healed at follow-up or not.
Authors: Jason C Clark; Joseph Ritchie; Frederick S Song; Michael J Kissenberth; Stefan J Tolan; Nathan D Hart; Richard J Hawkins Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Joo Han Oh; Sang-Jin Shin; Michelle H McGarry; Jonathan H Scott; Nathanael Heckmann; Thay Q Lee Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Leonid I Katolik; Anthony A Romeo; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Jennifer K Hayden; Bernard R Bach Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Jean-Sébastien Roy; Joy C Macdermid; Danny Goel; Kenneth J Faber; George S Athwal; Darren S Drosdowech Journal: Open Orthop J Date: 2010-04-23
Authors: T Bradley Edwards; Matthew D Williams; Joanne E Labriola; Hussein A Elkousy; Gary M Gartsman; Daniel P O'Connor Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Alexandre Almeida; Daniel C Agostini; Cristiano Raymondi; Pedro Guarise; Nayvaldo Couto de Almeida; Guilherme A Stangherlini Journal: J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast Date: 2019-07-09
Authors: M De Fine; M Sartori; G Giavaresi; R De Filippis; G Agrò; S Cialdella; Milena Fini; G Pignatti Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: Troy A Roberson; Ellen Shanley; James T Griscom; Michael Granade; Quinn Hunt; Kyle J Adams; Amit M Momaya; Adam Kwapisz; Michael J Kissenberth; Keith T Lonergan; Stefan J Tolan; Richard J Hawkins; John M Tokish Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2018-07-12
Authors: Tom van Essen; Anke Kornuijt; Lieke Maria Anna de Vries; Remco Stokman; Walter van der Weegen; Rob Bogie; Robert Jan Hillen; D A van Kampen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692