Failed Dermal Allograft Procedures for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears Can Still Improve Pain and Function: The "Biologic Tuberoplasty Effect".
acellular dermal matrix
biologic tuberoplasty
bridging repair
human dermal graft
massive rotator cuff tear
rotator cuff integrity
superior capsule reconstruction
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
Aug 2019
Historique:
entrez:
29
8
2019
pubmed:
29
8
2019
medline:
29
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in the treatment of shoulders with massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). Despite clinical improvement, correlation of clinical findings with ADM integrity on imaging has not been investigated. The pain in shoulders with MRCTs is partially due to bone-to-bone contact between the tuberosity and acromion. Coverage of the tuberosity with an intact graft or a graft that is torn in a way that the tuberosity remains covered will act as an interpositional tissue, preventing bone-to-bone contact and leading to clinical improvement. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Between 2006 and 2016, a total of 25 shoulders with MRCTs underwent a procedure with an ADM. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) results, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Hamada grade, and Goutallier classification were reviewed. A postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was obtained in 22 (88%) shoulders. The status of the graft was divided into the following categories: type I, intact graft; type II, graft tear with tuberosity covered; and type III, graft tear with tuberosity uncovered (bare). The mean patient age was 61 years (range, 49-73 years), and the mean follow-up was 25.6 months (range, 10-80 months). Mean length from surgery to postoperative MRI was 13.9 months (range, 6-80 months). The graft was torn in 59% (13/22 shoulders). Significant improvements were found in VAS and ASES scores (7 vs 0.7 and 32.6 vs 91.2, respectively; MRI appearance of the graft has a significant impact on functional outcomes. Patients with an intact graft or a graft tear leaving the tuberosity covered have lower pain and higher functional scores than those in whom the torn graft leaves the tuberosity uncovered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in the treatment of shoulders with massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). Despite clinical improvement, correlation of clinical findings with ADM integrity on imaging has not been investigated.
HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
The pain in shoulders with MRCTs is partially due to bone-to-bone contact between the tuberosity and acromion. Coverage of the tuberosity with an intact graft or a graft that is torn in a way that the tuberosity remains covered will act as an interpositional tissue, preventing bone-to-bone contact and leading to clinical improvement.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
Between 2006 and 2016, a total of 25 shoulders with MRCTs underwent a procedure with an ADM. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) results, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Hamada grade, and Goutallier classification were reviewed. A postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was obtained in 22 (88%) shoulders. The status of the graft was divided into the following categories: type I, intact graft; type II, graft tear with tuberosity covered; and type III, graft tear with tuberosity uncovered (bare).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean patient age was 61 years (range, 49-73 years), and the mean follow-up was 25.6 months (range, 10-80 months). Mean length from surgery to postoperative MRI was 13.9 months (range, 6-80 months). The graft was torn in 59% (13/22 shoulders). Significant improvements were found in VAS and ASES scores (7 vs 0.7 and 32.6 vs 91.2, respectively;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
MRI appearance of the graft has a significant impact on functional outcomes. Patients with an intact graft or a graft tear leaving the tuberosity covered have lower pain and higher functional scores than those in whom the torn graft leaves the tuberosity uncovered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31457066
doi: 10.1177/2325967119863432
pii: 10.1177_2325967119863432
pmc: PMC6702775
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967119863432Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.M. has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer, Thieme, and Zimmer Biomet; honoraria from Arthrex; research support from Arthrex, the Joint Restoration Foundation, and DJO Global; and has stock/stock options in Alignmed. M.A.S. has received educational support from DePuy/Synthes and hospitality payments from Acumed. A.S. has received consulting fees from Tornier. 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 Clin Anesth. 2001 Sep;13(6):401-6
pubmed: 11578882
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):136-42
pubmed: 11988724
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 May-Jun;13(3):272-8
pubmed: 15111896
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jan;88(1):113-20
pubmed: 16391256
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Feb;443:260-5
pubmed: 16462449
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):747-57
pubmed: 17403796
Arthroscopy. 2008 Apr;24(4):403-409.e1
pubmed: 18375271
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jan;19(1):10-3
pubmed: 19556147
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Jun;19(4):601-8
pubmed: 20056453
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2 Suppl):104-9
pubmed: 20188275
Arthroscopy. 2011 Oct;27(10):1341-50
pubmed: 21873021
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jan;40(1):141-7
pubmed: 22215726
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Oct;40(10):2248-55
pubmed: 22886689
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May;(254):92-6
pubmed: 2323152
Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):459-70
pubmed: 23369443
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2013 Feb;42(2):63-70
pubmed: 23431549
Arthrosc Tech. 2012 May 04;1(1):e69-74
pubmed: 23766979
Orthopedics. 2014 Dec;37(12):e1108-16
pubmed: 25437086
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2015 Sep;23(3):130-8
pubmed: 26225572
Open Orthop J. 2016 Jul 21;10:324-329
pubmed: 27708734
Obere Extrem. 2017;12(1):38-45
pubmed: 28868086
Acta Biomed. 2017 Oct 18;88(4S):75-80
pubmed: 29083357
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jan;34(1):93-99
pubmed: 29146165
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jun;34(6):1764-1773
pubmed: 29456069
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jul;26(7):2205-2213
pubmed: 29594325
J Orthop. 2018 Aug 16;15(3):862-868
pubmed: 30166800
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Feb;139(2):231-239
pubmed: 30167857
Arthroscopy. 2019 Feb;35(2):607-614
pubmed: 30545609
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Mar 19;:null
pubmed: 30888449
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jun;77(6):857-66
pubmed: 7782358
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
J Rheumatol. 1993 Aug;20(8):1359-61
pubmed: 8230019