| Literature DB >> 33330217 |
In Bo Kim1, Eun Yeol Kim1, Kuk Pil Lim1, Ki Seong Heo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the establishment of biological augmentation to improve the treatment of rotator cuff tears, it is imperative to explore newer techniques to reduce the retear rate and improve long-term shoulder function after rotator cuff repair. This study was undertaken to determine the consequences of a gel-type atelocollagen injection during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair on clinical outcomes, and evaluate its effect on structural integrity.Entities:
Keywords: Atelocollagen; Clinical outcome; Rotator cuff repair; Tendon integrity
Year: 2019 PMID: 33330217 PMCID: PMC7714314 DOI: 10.5397/cise.2019.22.4.183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Shoulder Elb ISSN: 1226-9344
Comparison of Demographic Data between Group I and Group II
| Variable | Group I (n=61) | Group II (n=60) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, male:female | 26 (42.6):35 (57.4) | 31 (51.7):29 (48.3) | 0.319 |
| Age (yr) | 59.8 ± 7.3 | 57.8 ± 8.1 | 0.150 |
| Symptom duration (mo) | 20.5 ± 45.3 | 9.5 ± 14.6 | 0.075 |
| Mediolateral tear size (mm) | 24.6 ± 11.6 | 24.3 ± 13.5 | 0.898 |
| Anteroposterior tear size (mm) | 19.3 ± 11.6 | 19.6 ± 11.9 | 0.890 |
| Tendon involvement, type 1:2:3 | 56:0:5 | 56:2:2 | 0.129 |
| Goutallier stages, grade 0:1:2:3:4 | |||
| Subscapularis | 20:37:4:0:0 | 17:43:0:0:0 | 0.044[ |
| Supraspinatus | 6:48:7:0:0 | 12:41:6:0:1 | 0.257 |
| Infraspinatus | 2:44:14:0:0 | 12:32:13:2:1 | 0.013[ |
| Acromiohumeral distance (mm) | 8.9 ± 1.7 | 10.1 ± 7.1 | 0.225 |
| Tangent sign | 1 (1.6) | 2 (3.3) | 0.619 |
Values are presented as number (%), mean ± standard deviation, or number only.
Group I: with a gel-type atelocollagen, Group II: conventional repair, type 1: supraspinatus, type 2: supraspinatus and subscapularis, type 3: supraspinatus and infraspinatus.
Statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Statistical significances (p<0.05) were tested by chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test.
Comparison of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) between Group I and Group II
| VAS | Preoperative | 3 d | 7 d | 14 d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I | 5.3 ± 2.1 | 2.7 ±1.9 | 2.0 ± 1.2 | 1.2 ± 1.0 | 0.001[ |
| Group II | 6.3 ± 1.7 | 5.7 ± 2.3 | 4.1 ± 2.7 | 3.2 ± 1.7 | 0.005[ |
| 0.363 | 0.007[ | 0.003[ | 0.003[ |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Group I: with a gel-type atelocollagen, Group II: conventional repair.
Statistically significant difference (p<0.05).
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Group I and Group II
| KSS score | Preoperative | 3 mo | 12 mo | 24 mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | ||||
| Group I | 19.2 ± 4.8 | 23.0 ± 4.2 | 25.1 ± 3.5 | 26.3 ± 2.8 |
| Group II | 19.3 ± 4.2 | 23.9 ± 2.9 | 25.1 ± 4.2 | 26.8 ± 3.5 |
| | 0.929 | 0.199 | 0.990 | 0.763 |
| Pain | ||||
| Group I | 13.1 ± 3.3 | 15.0 ± 3.2 | 15.5 ± 2.4 | 16.7 ± 4.1 |
| Group II | 14.0 ± 2.4 | 15.3 ± 2.2 | 16.4 ± 2.7 | 17.6 ± 2.6 |
| | 0.103 | 0.606 | 0.197 | 0.499 |
| Satisfaction | ||||
| Group I | 4.5 ± 2.7 | 6.6 ± 1.6 | 7.2 ± 1.1 | 7.2 ± 1.2 |
| Group II | 3.8 ± 1.7 | 6.5 ± 1.5 | 7.4 ± 1.3 | 7.9 ± 1.5 |
| | 0.124 | 0.747 | 0.563 | 0.260 |
| ROM | ||||
| Group I | 15.4 ± 3.5 | 14.0 ± 3.1 | 15.4 ± 2.3 | 17.3 ± 1.0 |
| Group II | 14.0 ± 4.1 | 14.4 ± 2.6 | 16.7 ± 2.7 | 16.9 ± 2.7 |
| | 0.051 | 0.383 | 0.054 | 0.701 |
| Strength | ||||
| Group I | 5.9 ± 2.6 | 7.8 ± 1.6 | 9.1 ± 1.1 | 9.3 ± 1.0 |
| Group II | 5.8 ± 2.9 | 6.9 ± 1.6 | 8.9 ± 1.3 | 9.3 ± 1.2 |
| | 0.833 | 0.003[ | 0.574 | 0.945 |
| Endurance | ||||
| Group I | 5.0 ± 4.7 | 5.2 ± 4.5 | 8.0 ± 3.8 | 9.5 ± 1.2 |
| Group II | 4.6 ± 4.7 | 4.1 ± 4.3 | 7.9 ± 4.0 | 9.4 ± 2.4 |
| | 0.690 | 0.165 | 0.935 | 0.933 |
| Total | ||||
| Group I | 63.0 ± 15.1 | 71.6 ± 12.9 | 80.1 ± 9.4 | 86.3 ± 7.3 |
| Group II | 61.5 ± 15.2 | 70.8 ± 9.0 | 82.3 ± 11.2 | 88.0 ± 8.9 |
| | 0.583 | 0.726 | 0.443 | 0.686 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
KSS: Korean Shoulder Society, ROM: range of motion, Group I: with a gel-type atelocollagen, Group II: conventional repair.
Statistically significant difference (p<0.05).