| Literature DB >> 32050999 |
Egbert J D Veen1,2, Ronald L Diercks3, Ellie B M Landman4, Cornelis T Koorevaar4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several surgical reconstructive options are available to treat massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). The rotator cable has an important function and we evaluated the clinical result after arthroscopic reconstruction of the rotator cable with an autograft tendon.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroscopy; Autograft; Biceps tendon; Massive rotator cuff tear
Year: 2020 PMID: 32050999 PMCID: PMC7014705 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-1568-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Final preparation of the biceps autograft with the anchor attached to the graft. BAG: biceps autograft, a: tenodesis biocomposite anchor (7 mm x 19.1 mm)
Fig. 2Insertion of anchor with biceps autograft attached into the humeral head after drilling. Seen from a posterior portal. HH: humeral head, BAG: biceps autograft, A: anchor
Fig. 3Attaching the cuff to the new reconstructed rotator cable using sutures. Seen from a posterior portal. RC: rotator cuff, HH: humeral head, BAG: biceps autograft, S: suture
Patient characteristics
| Patient | Age (years) | Sex | Smoker | MRI, no. of ruptured tendons | MRI Patte | MRI Fuchs | Additional surgery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | |||||||
| 1 | 61 | Female | Yes | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| 2 | 67 | Male | No | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| 3 | 64 | Male | No | 3 | 3 | 3 | Hamstring autograft, subscapularis repair |
| 4 | 62 | Male | No | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| Group 2 | |||||||
| 1 | 72 | Female | 2 | 3 | 3 | Non-surgical treatment | |
| 2 | 63 | Female | 1 | 3 | 2 | Non-surgical treatment | |
| 3 | 62 | Male | 2 | 3 | 3 | Non-surgical treatment | |
| 4 | 72 | Female | 3 | 3 | – | Non-surgical treatment | |
| 5 | 57 | Female | 2 | 3 | 3 | Non-surgical treatment | |
Group 1, surgical treatment, group 2, non-surgical treatment
Outcome scores in mean (range)
| Preop | 3 months | 6 months | 12 monthsa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 1 | Group 2 | |
| CMS pain | 6.3 (0–10) | 7.0 (0–15) | 7.5 (5–10) | 13.7 (10–15) | 10.0 (5–10) | 10.0(5–15) | 13.3 (10–15) | 11.0 (0–15) |
| CMS activity | 7.0 (4–12) | 10.4 (4–14) | 5.0 (4–6) | 16.5 (15–19) | 9.3 (4–15) | 14.8(12–20) | 16.0 (10–20) | 16.4 (8–20) |
| CMS mobility | 17.5 (10–24) | 23.6 (8–36) | 10.0 (8–12) | 26.0 (20–30) | 14.5 (8–20) | 27.2(22–34) | 20.6 (18–26) | 30.8 (20–36) |
| CMS strength | 12.5 (5–25) | 9.46 (2–19) | 12.5 (5–20) | 9.65 (8–12) | 14.3 (5–22) | 10.4(4–18) | 19.7 (10–25) | 9.88 (2–17) |
| CMS total | 43.3 (31–32) | 49.0 (26–73) | 35.0 (28–42) | 65.9 (61–73) | 46.5 (28–67) | 62.0(51–69) | 69.7 (53–80) | 68.1 (30–81) |
| SST | 5.5 (1–8) | – | 4.75 (1–8) | – | 5.3 (2–7) | – | 6.3 (6–7) | – |
| WORC | 55.3 (36–52) | – | 43.3 (39–53) | – | 47.7 (32–60) | – | 60.3 (49–67) | – |
| VAS pain | 45.0 (30–70) | 60 (30–80) | 56.3 (20–80) | 27 (20–50) | 37.5 (10–65) | 38(20–60) | 16.7 (10–20) | 26 (10–80) |
| VAS disability | 53.3 (8–80) | 54 (20–10) | 65.0 (40–85) | 35 (30–40) | 46.3 (20–70) | 42 (30–60) | 40.0 (15–70) | 30 (10–80) |
| VAS satisfaction | – | – | 46.3 (40–50) | – | 43.8 (5–60) | – | 63.4 (45–85) | – |
Group 1, surgical treatment; group 2, non-surgical treatment
WORC depicted as a percentage of normal/maximum score
aResults of three out of four patients
Fig. 4Total CMS scores per patient