Kelms Amoo-Achampong1,2, Michael K Krill3,4, Derrick Acheampong1, Benedict U Nwachukwu5, Frank McCormick6,7,8. 1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Division of Neurorehabilitation, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. 4. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Jameson Crane Sports Medicine Institute, Motion Analysis and Performance Laboratory, Columbus, USA. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, USA. 6. Department of Orthopaedics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA. 7. Department of Sports Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA. 8. Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tear surgical repair techniques have significantly progressed. However, tendon retear following primary repair persistently occurs at high rates. Rehabilitation protocols, surgical fixation techniques, biologic therapy with scaffolds, platelet-rich plasma, and even stem cell applications are under study to promote adequate tendon healing. METHODS: A nonsystematic query of the PubMed database was conducted in July 2016 utilizing the search terms "rotator cuff repair," "tear," "rehabilitation," "scaffold," "platelet-rich plasma," and "stem cell" to identify, analyze, and summarize relevant studies. CONCLUSION: Individualized rehabilitation protocols may be the best approach for small to medium sized tears. Surgical fixation will continue to be debated as modifications to single-row technique and increases in suture number have improved tensile strength. Double-row repairs have been associated with higher costs. Transosseous equivalent technique exhibits comparable subjective and objective outcomes to single- and double-row repair at two-year follow-up. Biocompatible scaffold augmentation has showed inconsistent short-term results. Platelet-rich plasma has lacked uniformity in treatment preparation, administration, and outcome measurement with mixed results. Few human studies have suggested decreased retear rates and improved repair maintenance following bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell augmentation. This review reiterated the necessity of additional high-quality, large-sample studies to develop any final verdict regarding efficacy.
INTRODUCTION: Rotator cuff tear surgical repair techniques have significantly progressed. However, tendon retear following primary repair persistently occurs at high rates. Rehabilitation protocols, surgical fixation techniques, biologic therapy with scaffolds, platelet-rich plasma, and even stem cell applications are under study to promote adequate tendon healing. METHODS: A nonsystematic query of the PubMed database was conducted in July 2016 utilizing the search terms "rotator cuff repair," "tear," "rehabilitation," "scaffold," "platelet-rich plasma," and "stem cell" to identify, analyze, and summarize relevant studies. CONCLUSION: Individualized rehabilitation protocols may be the best approach for small to medium sized tears. Surgical fixation will continue to be debated as modifications to single-row technique and increases in suture number have improved tensile strength. Double-row repairs have been associated with higher costs. Transosseous equivalent technique exhibits comparable subjective and objective outcomes to single- and double-row repair at two-year follow-up. Biocompatible scaffold augmentation has showed inconsistent short-term results. Platelet-rich plasma has lacked uniformity in treatment preparation, administration, and outcome measurement with mixed results. Few human studies have suggested decreased retear rates and improved repair maintenance following bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell augmentation. This review reiterated the necessity of additional high-quality, large-sample studies to develop any final verdict regarding efficacy.
Authors: Leesa M Galatz; Craig M Ball; Sharlene A Teefey; William D Middleton; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Joseph P Iannotti; Michael J Codsi; Young W Kwon; Kathleen Derwin; James Ciccone; John J Brems Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: David H Kim; Neal S Elattrache; James E Tibone; Bong-Jae Jun; Sergai N DeLaMora; Ronald S Kvitne; Thay Q Lee Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-11-10 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Augustus D Mazzocca; Peter J Millett; Carlos A Guanche; Stephen A Santangelo; Robert A Arciero Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-10-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: L M Galatz; M J Silva; S Y Rothermich; M A Zaegel; N Havlioglu; S Thomopoulos Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: M F Pittenger; A M Mackay; S C Beck; R K Jaiswal; R Douglas; J D Mosca; M A Moorman; D W Simonetti; S Craig; D R Marshak Journal: Science Date: 1999-04-02 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Cristina Roldán-Jiménez; Miguel Cuadros-Romero; Paul Bennett; Steven McPhail; Graham K Kerr; Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas; Jaime Martin-Martin Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 2.362