Journal article
Midterm outcome of arthroscopic revision repair of massive and nonmassive rotator cuff tears.
- Lädermann A Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland.
- Denard PJ
- Burkhart SS
- 2011-11-01
Published in:
- Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. - 2011
Arm Injuries
Arthroscopy
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Range of Motion, Articular
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Rotator Cuff
Rotator Cuff Injuries
Rupture
Tendon Injuries
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
English
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm functional outcome of arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair and compare the outcomes of nonmassive and massive rotator cuff tears.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of patients over a 10-year period who underwent arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair. The cohort was divided into 2 groups based on tear size (nonmassive and massive tears).
RESULTS
The cohort consisted of 21 nonmassive tears and 53 massive tears with a mean follow-up of 63 months. The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the overall cohort, after arthroscopic revision repair, there was a significant reduction in pain (P < .001) and increase in active forward elevation (P = .003) and functional outcome by American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P < .001) and University of California, Los Angeles score (P < .001). The rate of patient satisfaction was 78%. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (nonmassive v massive) in postoperative forward elevation, pain, or functional outcome. A poor functional outcome according to the University of California, Los Angeles score was associated with female sex (P = .005), preoperative active forward flexion below 136° (P = .004), and preoperative pain score greater than 5 points (P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study suggest that arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair is a reasonable treatment option, even in cases of massive retears. Tear size does not appear to affect final outcome. This technique can yield reliable improvements in active forward elevation and functional outcome and a decrease in pain at an acceptably high rate in this difficult patient population. Female sex, preoperative forward elevation less than 136°, and preoperative pain score greater than 5 points are poor prognostic risk factors for obtaining a satisfactory functional outcome with arthroscopic revision repair.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, therapeutic case series.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm functional outcome of arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair and compare the outcomes of nonmassive and massive rotator cuff tears.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of patients over a 10-year period who underwent arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair. The cohort was divided into 2 groups based on tear size (nonmassive and massive tears).
RESULTS
The cohort consisted of 21 nonmassive tears and 53 massive tears with a mean follow-up of 63 months. The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. In the overall cohort, after arthroscopic revision repair, there was a significant reduction in pain (P < .001) and increase in active forward elevation (P = .003) and functional outcome by American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P < .001) and University of California, Los Angeles score (P < .001). The rate of patient satisfaction was 78%. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (nonmassive v massive) in postoperative forward elevation, pain, or functional outcome. A poor functional outcome according to the University of California, Los Angeles score was associated with female sex (P = .005), preoperative active forward flexion below 136° (P = .004), and preoperative pain score greater than 5 points (P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study suggest that arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair is a reasonable treatment option, even in cases of massive retears. Tear size does not appear to affect final outcome. This technique can yield reliable improvements in active forward elevation and functional outcome and a decrease in pain at an acceptably high rate in this difficult patient population. Female sex, preoperative forward elevation less than 136°, and preoperative pain score greater than 5 points are poor prognostic risk factors for obtaining a satisfactory functional outcome with arthroscopic revision repair.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, therapeutic case series.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.290
- PMID 22036765
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/191947
Statistics
Document views: 21
File downloads: