Andrew J Sheean1, Darren de Sa2, Taylor Woolnough2, Daniel J Cognetti3, Jeffrey Kay2, Stephen S Burkhart4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.. Electronic address: ajsheean@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. 4. The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group, Burkhart Research Institute for Orthopaedics (BRIO), San Antonio, TX, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if an increased critical shoulder angle (CSA) predisposes patients to higher re-tear rates and worse clinical outcomes after rotator cuff (RC) repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was performed in October 2018 for English-language studies pertaining to RC repair and an increased CSA in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Studies of all levels of evidence were included provided that any outcomes, including pain, patient-reported outcomes, and re-tear rates, were reported. RESULTS: Of a group of 1126 studies that satisfied the initial search criteria, 6 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising data from 473 patients. Three comparative studies were assessed for an association between increased CSA and RC re-tear rates. Among these 3 studies that compared RC re-tear rate in patients with larger and smaller CSAs, 22 of 97 patients (23%) with a larger CSA had a RC re-tear in comparison to 10 of 99 patients (10%) with a smaller CSA. All 3 studies demonstrated higher RC re-tear rates in patients with larger CSAs (risk ratio, 2.39-9.66, I2 = 7%.) The mean CSA in those patients who did not have RC re-tears ranged from 34.3° to 37°, and the mean CSA in those patients who had RC re-tears ranged from 37° to 40°. CONCLUSION: RC re-tear rates were higher in patients with larger CSAs among comparative, nonrandomized studies. However, the heterogeneity of the relevant literature limits the strength of his observation. Based on the current literature, it remains unclear as to whether lateral acromioplasty affects clinical outcomes as a function of a reduced postoperative CSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
PURPOSE: To determine if an increased critical shoulder angle (CSA) predisposes patients to higher re-tear rates and worse clinical outcomes after rotator cuff (RC) repair. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was performed in October 2018 for English-language studies pertaining to RC repair and an increased CSA in accordance with Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Studies of all levels of evidence were included provided that any outcomes, including pain, patient-reported outcomes, and re-tear rates, were reported. RESULTS: Of a group of 1126 studies that satisfied the initial search criteria, 6 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising data from 473 patients. Three comparative studies were assessed for an association between increased CSA and RC re-tear rates. Among these 3 studies that compared RC re-tear rate in patients with larger and smaller CSAs, 22 of 97 patients (23%) with a larger CSA had a RC re-tear in comparison to 10 of 99 patients (10%) with a smaller CSA. All 3 studies demonstrated higher RC re-tear rates in patients with larger CSAs (risk ratio, 2.39-9.66, I2 = 7%.) The mean CSA in those patients who did not have RC re-tears ranged from 34.3° to 37°, and the mean CSA in those patients who had RC re-tears ranged from 37° to 40°. CONCLUSION: RC re-tear rates were higher in patients with larger CSAs among comparative, nonrandomized studies. However, the heterogeneity of the relevant literature limits the strength of his observation. Based on the current literature, it remains unclear as to whether lateral acromioplasty affects clinical outcomes as a function of a reduced postoperative CSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
Authors: Ian S MacLean; Anirudh K Gowd; Brian R Waterman; Ian J Dempsey; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole; Anthony A Romeo; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09-30