| Literature DB >> 35599789 |
Yichong Zhang1, Jianhai Chen1, Mingtai Ma1, Jiabao Ju1, Baoguo Jiang1, Peixun Zhang1.
Abstract
Background: Proximal humeral migration is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relevance between proximal humeral migration and some rotator cuff tear-related factors.Entities:
Keywords: acromion humeral distance; predictor; proximal humeral migration; rotator cuff tear; upward migration index
Year: 2022 PMID: 35599789 PMCID: PMC9118713 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.903538
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Baseline statistics of patients.
| Variable ( | Variable name | Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Age | 64.48 | 11.71 | 35.00 | 87.00 |
| Body mass index | BMI | 24.33 | 2.83 | 18.70 | 30.10 |
| Humeral center to acromion | CA | 30.95 | 2.75 | 23.34 | 37.53 |
| Radius of humeral head | R | 23.12 | 2.05 | 18.54 | 28.10 |
| UMI value | UMI | 1.34 | 0.07 | 1.16 | 1.48 |
| UMI class | UMI_Class | 2 | 0.77 | 1.00 | 3.00 |
| Pain score | VAS | 5.24 | 2.36 | 1.00 | 10.00 |
| Supraspinatus fatty grade |
| 1.72 | 1.2 | 0 | 4.00 |
| Tendon thickness at the tear site |
| 9.22 | 2.44 | 4.60 | 15.60 |
| Tear area of supraspinatus |
| 297.47 | 311.86 | 21.24 | 1266.83 |
Comparison of the fatty degeneration of rotator cuff among different groups.
| UMI classification | Goutallier classification | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Group A ( | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Group B ( | 4 | 12 | 9 | 3 | 2 |
| Group C ( | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
Pearson analysis between different factors (the number at the top of each unit is a correlation coefficient, and the value below is a p-value). Gender: male = 1, female = 2.
| 3 Factors 6 UMI | Sex | Age | BMI | VAS | UMI class | CA |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 1.00000 | 0.22981* | −0.607* | 0.084 | 0.13927 | −0.40629* | −0.46452* |
| 0.0473 | <0.0001 | 0.489 | 0.2334 | 0.0003 | <0.0001 | ||
| Age | 0.22981* | 1.00000 | −0.173 | 0.055 | −0.13019 | −0.22163 | −0.10017 |
| 0.0473 | 0.138 | 0.639 | 0.2656 | 0.0560 | 0.3925 | ||
| BMI | −0.607* | −0.173 | 1.00000 | −0.157 | 0.129 | 0.295* | 0.192 |
| <0.0001 | 0.138 | 0.178 | 0.271 | 0.01 | 0.098 | ||
| VAS | 0.084 | 0.055 | −0.157 | 1.00000 | −0.342* | −0.286* | −0.066 |
| 0.489 | 0.639 | 0.178 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.571 | ||
| UMI class | 0.13927 | −0.13019 | 0.129 | −0.342* | 1.00000 | 0.23950* | −0.33356* |
| 0.2334 | 0.2656 | 0.271 | 0.003 | 0.0385 | 0.0035 | ||
| CA | −0.40629* | −0.22163 | 0.295* | −0.286* | 0.23950* | 1.00000 | 0.80288* |
| 0.0003 | 0.0560 | 0.01 | 0.013 | 0.0385 | <0.0001 | ||
|
| −0.46452* | −0.10017 | 0.192 | −0.066 | −0.33356* | 0.80288* | 1.00000 |
| <0.0001 | 0.3925 | 0.098 | 0.571 | 0.0035 | <0.0001 |
*Significance level was below 0.05.
Pearson correlation analysis between different MRI results and UMI.
| UMI | Tear size logarithm ( | Fatty degeneration grade ( | Tendon thickness ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient | −0.6814 | −0.373 | 0.14911 |
| Significance (bilateral) | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.2017 |
Ordinal multinomial logistic regression analysis of factors affecting proximal humeral migration.
| Influence factor | OR | SE | Wald | DOF | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | ||||||
| Tear size | 6.2 | 0.359 | 25.916 | 1 | 0.000* | −2.528 | −1.123 |
| Fatty degeneration | |||||||
| 0 | 0.11 | 1.457 | 2.326 | 1 | 0.127 | −0.634 | 5.078 |
| 1 | 0.27 | 1.364 | 0.926 | 1 | 0.336 | −1.361 | 3.985 |
| 2 | 0.36 | 1.392 | 0.532 | 1 | 0.466 | −1.712 | 3.743 |
| 3 | 0.996 | 1.466 | 0.000 | 1 | 0.998 | −2.869 | 2.876 |
| 4 | 1 | – | – | 0 | – | – | – |
| Pain | |||||||
| 1 | 0.21 | 1.958 | 0.654 | 1 | 0.419 | −2.254 | 5.422 |
| 2 | 0.27 | 1.461 | 0.785 | 1 | 0.376 | −1.568 | 4.157 |
| 3 | 0.15 | 1.608 | 1.354 | 1 | 0.245 | −1.280 | 5.023 |
| 4 | 0.75 | 1.321 | 0.046 | 1 | 0.829 | −2.304 | 2.873 |
| 5 | 2 | 1.341 | 0.269 | 1 | 0.604 | −3.322 | 1.933 |
| 6 | 4.57 | 1.382 | 1.209 | 1 | 0.272 | −4.229 | 1.190 |
| 7 | 1.67 | 1.404 | 0.134 | 1 | 0.715 | −3.266 | 2.239 |
| 8 | 3.62 | 1.491 | 0.746 | 1 | 0.388 | −4.209 | 1.634 |
| 9 | 2.92 | 2.132 | 0.252 | 1 | 0.616 | −5.248 | 3.109 |
| 10 | 1 | – | – | 0 | – | – | – |
*P<0.001.
Results of ROC analysis on tear and UMI.
| 3 Factors 6 UMI | AUC | 95% CI | Youden’s index | Cutoff value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMI (a) | 0.798 | 0.722–0.874 | 0.597 | 1.38 | <0.01 |
| UMI (b) | 0.843 | 0.749–0.938 | 0.633 | 1.30 | <0.01 |