Jonathan D Hughes1, Brian Davis2, Emily Whicker3, Gregory R Sprowls4, Lindsay Barrera2, Ashkan Baradaran5, Soheil Sabzevari3,5, Jeremy M Burnham6, Anup A Shah2,7, Albert Lin3. 1. UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA. Hughesjd3@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 3. UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Baylor Scott and White Medical Center-Temple, Temple, TX, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ochsner Health System Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare various nonarthroplasty treatment options for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears, including allograft bridging/augmentation, debridement, partial repair, superior capsule reconstruction (SCR), subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for all articles pertaining to nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Inclusion criteria included manuscripts published between 2009 and 2020 with at least 1 year follow-up and Level I-IV evidence. Articles were separated into six groups: debridement, arthroscopic and open repair, allograft bridging/augmentation, SCR, subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. Data points included range of motion (external rotation, abduction, forward flexion, and internal rotation), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, rate of revision surgery, and rate of conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: A total of 83 studies and 3363 patients were included. All treatment options had statistically significant improvements in postoperative range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. The SCR subgroup had the greatest improvement in ASES scores postoperatively. The overall revision rate was 7.2% among all surgical options, with the allograft bridging/augmentation group having the lowest rate of revision at 0-8.3%. The overall rate of conversion to arthroplasty was 7.2%, with debridement having the greatest rate of conversion at 15.4%. CONCLUSION: All six nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears resulted in statistically significant improvements in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year follow-up or more, with low rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneous nature of the data, lack of prospective randomized control trials, and short-term follow-up. The findings of this study highlight the complexity of irreparable, massive rotator cuff tears, and the need for an individualized approach when treating these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
PURPOSE: To compare various nonarthroplasty treatment options for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears, including allograft bridging/augmentation, debridement, partial repair, superior capsule reconstruction (SCR), subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for all articles pertaining to nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Inclusion criteria included manuscripts published between 2009 and 2020 with at least 1 year follow-up and Level I-IV evidence. Articles were separated into six groups: debridement, arthroscopic and open repair, allograft bridging/augmentation, SCR, subacromial balloon spacer, and tendon transfer. Data points included range of motion (external rotation, abduction, forward flexion, and internal rotation), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, rate of revision surgery, and rate of conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: A total of 83 studies and 3363 patients were included. All treatment options had statistically significant improvements in postoperative range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. The SCR subgroup had the greatest improvement in ASES scores postoperatively. The overall revision rate was 7.2% among all surgical options, with the allograft bridging/augmentation group having the lowest rate of revision at 0-8.3%. The overall rate of conversion to arthroplasty was 7.2%, with debridement having the greatest rate of conversion at 15.4%. CONCLUSION: All six nonarthroplasty treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears resulted in statistically significant improvements in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes at 1 year follow-up or more, with low rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty. Debridement had statistically significantly greater postoperative abduction and forward flexion range of motion, as well as better VAS pain scores, compared to the other treatment options. However, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneous nature of the data, lack of prospective randomized control trials, and short-term follow-up. The findings of this study highlight the complexity of irreparable, massive rotator cuff tears, and the need for an individualized approach when treating these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Authors: Christopher R Adams; Patrick J Denard; Paul C Brady; Robert U Hartzler; Stephen S Burkhart Journal: Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) Date: 2016 Jul-Aug
Authors: Andrew R Baker; Jesse A McCarron; Carmela D Tan; Joseph P Iannotti; Kathleen A Derwin Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.176