Effect of Muscle Quality on Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears.

arthroscopic repair fatty infiltration muscle atrophy nonoperative treatment rotator cuff tangent sign

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Historique:
entrez: 21 8 2019
pubmed: 21 8 2019
medline: 21 8 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are predictors of negative outcomes after rotator cuff repair. However, the impact of muscle degeneration on nonsurgical treatment is unknown. Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration will reduce the outcomes of operative repair while having a minimal effect on nonsurgical treatment. Additionally, in the setting of atrophy and fatty infiltration, surgical and nonsurgical treatment will produce equivalent outcomes. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Patients undergoing operative and nonoperative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears were prospectively enrolled into a nonrandomized cohort study. Muscle quality was assessed on magnetic resonance imaging by use of the supraspinatus tangent sign, Warner atrophy, and Goutallier fatty infiltration classifications. Grading was performed by 2 independent observers who were blinded to patient treatment and outcomes. Normalized Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index was the primary patient-reported outcome. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine the impact of muscle quality on treatment outcomes. The cohort consisted of 157 patients, 89 (57%) surgical and 68 (43%) nonsurgical, with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range, 1-5 years). Tangent sign had the best inter- and intrarater reliability, with kappa statistics of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. Reliability for Warner atrophy was 0.69 to 0.76 and for Goutallier classification was 0.54 to 0.64. Overall, improvement in WORC scores was higher in the surgical group than the nonsurgical group (39.3 vs 21.2; A positive tangent sign was predictive of worse operative outcomes, resulting in equivalent improvements between surgical and nonsurgical treatment. The tangent sign is a reliable, prognostic indicator that clinicians can use when counseling patients on the optimal treatment of rotator cuff tears.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are predictors of negative outcomes after rotator cuff repair. However, the impact of muscle degeneration on nonsurgical treatment is unknown.
HYPOTHESIS OBJECTIVE
Rotator cuff muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration will reduce the outcomes of operative repair while having a minimal effect on nonsurgical treatment. Additionally, in the setting of atrophy and fatty infiltration, surgical and nonsurgical treatment will produce equivalent outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS METHODS
Patients undergoing operative and nonoperative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears were prospectively enrolled into a nonrandomized cohort study. Muscle quality was assessed on magnetic resonance imaging by use of the supraspinatus tangent sign, Warner atrophy, and Goutallier fatty infiltration classifications. Grading was performed by 2 independent observers who were blinded to patient treatment and outcomes. Normalized Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index was the primary patient-reported outcome. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to determine the impact of muscle quality on treatment outcomes.
RESULTS RESULTS
The cohort consisted of 157 patients, 89 (57%) surgical and 68 (43%) nonsurgical, with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range, 1-5 years). Tangent sign had the best inter- and intrarater reliability, with kappa statistics of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. Reliability for Warner atrophy was 0.69 to 0.76 and for Goutallier classification was 0.54 to 0.64. Overall, improvement in WORC scores was higher in the surgical group than the nonsurgical group (39.3 vs 21.2;
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
A positive tangent sign was predictive of worse operative outcomes, resulting in equivalent improvements between surgical and nonsurgical treatment. The tangent sign is a reliable, prognostic indicator that clinicians can use when counseling patients on the optimal treatment of rotator cuff tears.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31428659
doi: 10.1177/2325967119863010
pii: 10.1177_2325967119863010
pmc: PMC6683312
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2325967119863010

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: A.B. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Smith & Nephew, and Stryker; royalties from Arthrex; speaking fees from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew; and educational support from the CDC. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):599-605
pubmed: 10633896
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):37-46
pubmed: 11182734
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Nov-Dec;11(6):587-94
pubmed: 12469084
Clin J Sport Med. 2003 Mar;13(2):84-92
pubmed: 12629425
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):550-4
pubmed: 14671517
Arthroscopy. 2003 Dec;19(10):1109-20
pubmed: 14673454
J Orthop Res. 2004 Sep;22(5):1004-7
pubmed: 15304272
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Sep;86(9):1973-82
pubmed: 15342760
Arthroscopy. 2006 Jun;22(6):581-6
pubmed: 16762694
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Jul-Aug;15(4):395-8
pubmed: 16831639
Am J Sports Med. 2007 May;35(5):719-28
pubmed: 17337727
Arthroscopy. 2007 Apr;23(4):347-54
pubmed: 17418325
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):99-103
pubmed: 17932406
Arthroscopy. 2007 Nov;23(11):1152-61
pubmed: 17986401
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Mar;36(3):533-8
pubmed: 18006676
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jun;468(6):1558-64
pubmed: 19347412
Arthroscopy. 2012 Feb;28(2):154-9
pubmed: 22019235
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jul;40(7):1611-9
pubmed: 22582227
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jun;22(6):e6-10
pubmed: 23352548
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1674-83
pubmed: 23631883
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Oct;21(10):613-23
pubmed: 24084435
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Feb;23(2):415-22
pubmed: 24170190
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Feb;43(2):491-500
pubmed: 24753240
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1023-7
pubmed: 24929744
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Sep 17;96(18):1504-14
pubmed: 25232074
Joints. 2014 May 08;2(1):26-8
pubmed: 25606538
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Nov 4;97(21):1729-37
pubmed: 26537160
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Aug 16;99(16):1355-1364
pubmed: 28816895
Arthroscopy. 2018 Apr;34(4):1121-1127
pubmed: 29273256
Rev Rhum Engl Ed. 1995 Jun;62(6):415-22
pubmed: 7552205
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov;(344):275-83
pubmed: 9372778
Invest Radiol. 1998 Mar;33(3):163-70
pubmed: 9525755

Auteurs

Micah Naimark (M)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Thai Trinh (T)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Christopher Robbins (C)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Bridger Rodoni (B)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

James Carpenter (J)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Asheesh Bedi (A)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Bruce Miller (B)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Classifications MeSH