| Literature DB >> 29264234 |
Vivek Pandey1, W Jaap Willems2.
Abstract
Rotator cuff tear has been a known entity for orthopaedic surgeons for more than two hundred years. Although the exact pathogenesis is controversial, a combination of intrinsic factors proposed by Codman and extrinsic factors theorized by Neer is likely responsible for most rotator cuff tears. Magnetic resonance imaging remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears, but the emergence of ultrasound has revolutionized the diagnostic capability. Even though mini-open rotator cuff repair is still commonly performed, and results are comparable to arthroscopic repair, all-arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tear is now fast becoming a standard care for rotator cuff repair. Appropriate knowledge of pathology and healing pattern of cuff, strong and biological repair techniques, better suture anchors, and gradual rehabilitation of postcuff repair have led to good to excellent outcome after repair. As the healing of degenerative cuff tear remains unpredictable, the role of biological agents such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells for postcuff repair augmentation is still under evaluation. The role of scaffolds in massive cuff tear is also being probed.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanics; pathoanatomy; rehabilitation; rotator cuff
Year: 2015 PMID: 29264234 PMCID: PMC5730646 DOI: 10.1016/j.asmart.2014.11.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol ISSN: 2214-6873
Fig. 1(A) Coronal force couple. (B) Transverse force couple. D = deltoid muscle force; I/Tm = infraspinatus/teres minor muscle force; SSc = subscapularis muscle force.
Fig. 2Summary of extrinsic and intrinsic pathways of rotator cuff tear. ECM = extracellular matrix; MMP-1 = matrix metalloproteinase-1; ROS = reactive oxygen species.
Fig. 3Bigliani's classification of acromion undersurface with corresponding supraspinatus outlet view radiograph.
Principles of rotator cuff repair.
| 1. Confirmation of cuff tear, manage pathologies of the biceps, labrum, and cartilage, if any. |
Fig. 4Diagrammatic representation of (A) single row, (B) double row, and (C) transosseous equivalent suture anchor repair.
Clinical and structural outcomes of SR versus DR rotator cuff repair in various recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
| Author, y | Type of study | Comparative groups | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeHaan et al (2012) | Systematic review of seven Level I and Level II studies | SR vs. DR | |
| Sheibani-Rad et al (2013) | Meta-analysis of five Level I studies | SR vs. DR | No difference in clinical and structural outcomes |
| Mascarenhas et al (2014) | Systematic review of eight Level I and Level II studies | SR vs. DR | DR provides superior structural healing to SR |
| Xu et al (2014) | Meta-analysis of nine Level I studies | SR vs. DR |
DR = double row; SR = single row.
Histological process of rotator cuff healing on to the footprint.
| Phase | Microscopic process |
|---|---|
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 |
Clinical and structural outcomes in the early and delayed rehabilitation groups after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in various RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.
| Author, y | Type of study | Comparative group characteristics (early vs. delayed rehabilitation) | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cuff and Pupello (2012) | RCT, 64 patients | Crescent tear; TOE repair | |
| Lee et al (2012) | Comparative study, 68 patients | Medium–large-sized tear; SR repair | |
| Keener et al (2014) | RCT, 124 patients | Small–medium-sized tears; TOE repair | No difference in functional or structural outcome |
| Kluczynski et al (2014) | Systematic review and meta-analysis, 28 studies | Small–large-sized tear; | Risk of retear was high for tear size > 5 cm in the early group vs. the late group repaired by DR (56.4% vs. 20%, |
| Ross et al (2014) | Review of seven studies (RCTs and other types) | All types of tear and repair | The accelerated group has a |
DR = double row; RCT = randomized controlled trial; ROM = range of motion; SR = single row; TO = transosseous; TOE = transosseous equivalent; RR = relative risk.