Literature DB >> 34631904

Functional and Structural Outcomes After Retears of Arthroscopically Repaired Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.

Suguru Tanaka1, Masafumi Gotoh2, Koji Tanaka1, Yasuhiro Mitsui1, Hidehiro Nakamura1, Hiroki Ozono1, Takahiro Okawa2, Naoto Shiba1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most studies have shown acceptable clinical results in patients with large or massive tears treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR); however, the effects of retears after surgery in these patients remain unknown.
PURPOSE: To evaluate functional and structural outcomes after retears of large and massive rotator cuff tears treated by ARCR. STUDY
DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: A total of 196 consecutive patients with large to massive rotator cuff tears underwent physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging before and after ARCR at 6, 12, and 24 months. Of these, 9 patients were lost at 6 months after surgery. Therefore, 187 patients were followed up for 24 months after surgery; 148 patients showed no postsurgical ruptures. Consequently, the remaining 39 patients with postsurgical ruptures were included in this study (mean age at surgery, 64.2 ± 8.7 years). Functional outcome measures comprised the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Structural outcome measures consisted of the global fatty degeneration index (GFDI), mediolateral tear size, and residual tendon attachment area as evaluated by our own scoring system.
RESULTS: The mean UCLA and JOA scores significantly improved from 16.3 ± 3.9 and 63.2 ± 10.7 preoperatively to 27.9 ± 5.5 (P < .0001) and 84.5 ± 9.4 (P < .0001) at final follow-up, respectively. The mean mediolateral tear size (P = .03, .02, and .02, respectively) and residual tendon attachment area (P = .04, .03, and .04, respectively) significantly improved from preoperatively to 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The correlation analysis between the functional and structural variables confirmed significant associations between the residual tendon attachment area, the JOA and UCLA scores at 24 months postoperatively, and the preoperative GFDI (r = -0.81 to 0.78).
CONCLUSION: The residual tendon attachment area after a retear was significantly larger at 24 months after surgery than before surgery. In addition, significant associations were confirmed between preoperative fatty degeneration, the residual tendon attachment area, and functional outcomes after a retear. These results may explain why functional outcomes significantly improved even after retears in this series.
© The Author(s) 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; functional outcome; large/massive rotator cuff tears; residual tendon attachment area; retear; structural outcome

Year:  2021        PMID: 34631904      PMCID: PMC8493310          DOI: 10.1177/23259671211035752

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med        ISSN: 2325-9671


  23 in total

1.  Prospective analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prognostic factors affecting clinical and ultrasound outcome.

Authors:  Shane J Nho; Barrett S Brown; Stephen Lyman; Ronald S Adler; David W Altchek; John D MacGillivray
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Humeral insertion of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. New anatomical findings regarding the footprint of the rotator cuff.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Mochizuki; Hiroyuki Sugaya; Mari Uomizu; Kazuhiko Maeda; Keisuke Matsuki; Ichiro Sekiya; Takeshi Muneta; Keiichi Akita
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Functional and structural outcomes of single-row versus double-row versus combined double-row and suture-bridge repair for rotator cuff tears.

Authors:  Teruhisa Mihata; Chisato Watanabe; Kunimoto Fukunishi; Mutsumi Ohue; Tomoyuki Tsujimura; Kenta Fujiwara; Mitsuo Kinoshita
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Evaluation of the Risk Factors for a Rotator Cuff Retear After Repair Surgery.

Authors:  Yeong Seok Lee; Jeung Yeol Jeong; Chan-Deok Park; Seung Gyoon Kang; Jae Chul Yoo
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  Arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: outcome and analysis of factors associated with healing failure or poor postoperative function.

Authors:  Seok Won Chung; Joon Yub Kim; Min Hyung Kim; Sae Hoon Kim; Joo Han Oh
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Natural history of asymptomatic rotator cuff tears: a longitudinal analysis of asymptomatic tears detected sonographically.

Authors:  K Yamaguchi; A M Tetro; O Blam; B A Evanoff; S A Teefey; W D Middleton
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  The Relationship Between Intraoperative Tear Dimensions and Postoperative Pain in 1624 Consecutive Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs.

Authors:  Daniel Y T Yeo; Judie R Walton; Patrick Lam; George A C Murrell
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Effect of Preoperative Fatty Degeneration of the Rotator Cuff Muscles on the Clinical Outcome of Patients With Intact Tendons After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair of Large/Massive Cuff Tears.

Authors:  Hiroki Ohzono; Masafumi Gotoh; Hidehiro Nakamura; Hirokazu Honda; Yasuhiro Mitsui; Tatsuyuki Kakuma; Takahiro Okawa; Naoto Shiba
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Rotator cuff integrity after arthroscopic repair for large tears with less-than-optimal footprint coverage.

Authors:  Jae Chul Yoo; Jin Hwan Ahn; Kyoung Hwan Koh; Kyung Sub Lim
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  A biomechanical analysis of rotator cuff deficiency in a cadaveric model.

Authors:  W O Thompson; R E Debski; N D Boardman; E Taskiran; J J Warner; F H Fu; S L Woo
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.