| Literature DB >> 31482843 |
Marco C Sarmento1, António E Cartucho2, Jacinto M Monteiro1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the rotator cuff retear after being surgically repaired, some strategies have been developed. The authors verified that the possibility of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) vented anchors promoted a better clinical and healing process than PEEK solid anchors.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31482843 PMCID: PMC6724504 DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2019026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SICOT J ISSN: 2426-8887
Comparison of pre-operative epidemiological and clinical parameters.
| Parameter | Group 1 ( | Group 2 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender distribution | .251 | ||
| Female, No | 14 | 12 | |
| Male, No | 4 | 8 | |
| Age at surgery, mean (range) years | 65.3 (51–75) | 63.4 (48–73) | .395 |
| Average symptoms before surgery, mean (range) months | 9.7 (3–24) | 14.6 (1–24) | .263 |
| Smokers | 0 | 0 | |
| Physiotherapy | 8 | 10 | .740 |
| Oral medication | 15 | 20 | .066 |
| Subacromial infiltration | 7 | 5 | .308 |
| RMN retraction (supraspinatus) | .128 | ||
| None | 1 | 5 | |
| 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| 2 | 11 | 7 | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| RMN atrophy (supraspinatus) | .131 | ||
| None | 5 | 9 | |
| 1 | 8 | 9 | |
| 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| 3 | 1 | ||
| RMN fatty infiltration (supraspinatus) | .063 | ||
| None | 10 | 15 | |
| 1 | 6 | 5 | |
| 2 | 2 | ||
| Rupture dimension (mm) | |||
| Antero-posterior, mean ± | 2.13 ± 0.25 | 2.53 ± 0.25 | .218 |
| Latero-medial, mean ± | 2.16 ± 0.92 | 1.76 ± 0.88 | .184 |
Group 1: vented anchors; Group 2: solid anchors; SD: standard deviation.
According to the Mann–Whitney test (p < .05 indicates statistical significance).
According to Patte [19].
According to Goutallier et al. [8] modified by Fuchs et al. [9].
Figure 1VAS evolution. Time 1: pre-op; Time 2: 12 months.
Figure 2DASH Score evolution. Time 1: pre-op; Time 2: 12 months.
Figure 3Constant Score (absolute value in points) evolution. Time 1: pre-op; Time 2: 12 months.
Comparison of clinical parameters pre-operatively and 12 months post-operatively in both groups and between groups.
| Parameter | Group 1 | Group 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-op | Post-op at 12 months | Pre-op | Post-op at 12 months | ||||
| VAS score, mean ± | 7.3 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 1.98 | .001 | 7.9 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | .001 | .731 |
| DASH score, mean ± | 72.1 ± 4.1 | 34.2 ±5.2 | .001 | 70.6 ±4.1 | 23.9 ± 5.1 | .001 | .268 |
| Constant Score, mean ± | 44.1 ± 3.2 | 76.9 ± 2.6 | .001 | 38.7 ± 3.0 | 77.3 ± 2.5 | .001 | .910 |
Group 1: vented anchors; Group 2: solid anchors; SD: standard deviation.
According to Wilcoxon test (p < .05 indicates statistical significance).
p value of final results between Group 1 and Group 2.
Sugaya’s classification at 12 months follow-up.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Healed (Sugaya I–III) | Not healed (Sugaya IV–V) | Healed (Sugaya I–III) | Not healed (Sugaya IV–V) |
| 10 | 8 | 15 | 5 |
Group 1: vented anchors; Group 2: solid anchors; p = 0.173.
According to Wilcoxon test (p < .05 indicates statistical significance).