Ji-Yong Gwark1, Chang-Meen Sung2, Jae-Boem Na3, Hyung Bin Park4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Suncheon Hankook Hospital, Suncheon, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: hbinpark@gnu.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the structural and clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) of a case group aged 70 and above with those of a control group younger than 70, with the 2 groups matched for sex and tear size. METHODS: The case group, comprising 53 patients 70 or older, and the control group, comprising 159 patients younger than 70, all received ARCR to 1 shoulder with symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear. The case and the control subjects, who were matched for sex and tear size to minimize bias related to tendon healing, received ARCR during the same period. The mean age was 71.8 ± 2.6 years in the case group and 59.3 ± 7.1 years in the control group. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year in both groups. Cuff integrity was evaluated using ultrasonography. Structural and clinical outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Regarding structural outcomes, the complete healing, partial-thickness retear, and full-thickness retear rates were 66% (35/53), 15% (8/53), and 19% (10/53) in the case group, and 68% (108/159), 19% (30/159), and 13% (21/159), respectively, in the control group. The 2 groups had no significantly different retear rates (P = .52). Regarding clinical outcomes, the mean improvements in range of motion, pain, muscle strength, and age- and sex-matched Constant scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P > .37). The preoperative tear size was significantly associated with retear in both studied groups (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and structural outcomes of ARCR in patients 70 or older with symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear are comparable with those in patients younger than 70 with at least 1-year follow-up. Preoperative tear size, a biological factor, is a strong predictor for retear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, a retrospective comparative (case-control) study.
PURPOSE: To compare the structural and clinical outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) of a case group aged 70 and above with those of a control group younger than 70, with the 2 groups matched for sex and tear size. METHODS: The case group, comprising 53 patients 70 or older, and the control group, comprising 159 patients younger than 70, all received ARCR to 1 shoulder with symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear. The case and the control subjects, who were matched for sex and tear size to minimize bias related to tendon healing, received ARCR during the same period. The mean age was 71.8 ± 2.6 years in the case group and 59.3 ± 7.1 years in the control group. The minimum follow-up period was 1 year in both groups. Cuff integrity was evaluated using ultrasonography. Structural and clinical outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Regarding structural outcomes, the complete healing, partial-thickness retear, and full-thickness retear rates were 66% (35/53), 15% (8/53), and 19% (10/53) in the case group, and 68% (108/159), 19% (30/159), and 13% (21/159), respectively, in the control group. The 2 groups had no significantly different retear rates (P = .52). Regarding clinical outcomes, the mean improvements in range of motion, pain, muscle strength, and age- and sex-matched Constant scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P > .37). The preoperative tear size was significantly associated with retear in both studied groups (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and structural outcomes of ARCR in patients 70 or older with symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear are comparable with those in patients younger than 70 with at least 1-year follow-up. Preoperative tear size, a biological factor, is a strong predictor for retear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, a retrospective comparative (case-control) study.