Partial Rotator Cuff Repair With Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using the Biceps Tendon Is as Effective as Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using a Tensor Fasciae Latae Autograft in the Treatment of Irreparable Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.
fatty degeneration
long head of the biceps tendon
massive rotator cuff tear
rotator cuff repair
superior capsular reconstruction
tensor fasciae latae
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:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
14
01
2020
accepted:
12
02
2020
entrez:
18
6
2020
pubmed:
18
6
2020
medline:
18
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several treatment options are available for stable massive rotator cuff tears, including partial repair with or without tissue augmentation, tendon transfer, superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of partial rotator cuff repair with SCR using the long head of the biceps tendon (PRCR-SCRB) and SCR with a tensor fasciae latae autograft (SCRTF) for the treatment of rotator cuff tears with severe fatty degeneration. The hypothesis of this study was that SCRTF would be superior to PRCR-SCRB in functional and anatomic outcomes. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. A total of 26 consecutive patients with massive and fatty degenerative rotator cuff tears were treated surgically. Patients were divided into either the PRCR-SCRB group (n = 14) or SCRTF group (n = 12). Functional outcomes were assessed at final follow-up, and the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) was measured. All functional scores significantly improved in both groups at final follow-up. The PRCR-SCRB group showed better overall outcomes in terms of the visual analog scale for pain; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, but these differences were not statistically significant. Better outcomes were found for only the AHD for the PRCR-SCRB group without statistical significance ( PRCR-SCRB had comparable outcomes and improvement in AHD compared with SCRTF without the need for additional graft harvesting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several treatment options are available for stable massive rotator cuff tears, including partial repair with or without tissue augmentation, tendon transfer, superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of partial rotator cuff repair with SCR using the long head of the biceps tendon (PRCR-SCRB) and SCR with a tensor fasciae latae autograft (SCRTF) for the treatment of rotator cuff tears with severe fatty degeneration. The hypothesis of this study was that SCRTF would be superior to PRCR-SCRB in functional and anatomic outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 26 consecutive patients with massive and fatty degenerative rotator cuff tears were treated surgically. Patients were divided into either the PRCR-SCRB group (n = 14) or SCRTF group (n = 12). Functional outcomes were assessed at final follow-up, and the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) was measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All functional scores significantly improved in both groups at final follow-up. The PRCR-SCRB group showed better overall outcomes in terms of the visual analog scale for pain; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, but these differences were not statistically significant. Better outcomes were found for only the AHD for the PRCR-SCRB group without statistical significance (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PRCR-SCRB had comparable outcomes and improvement in AHD compared with SCRTF without the need for additional graft harvesting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32548183
doi: 10.1177/2325967120922526
pii: 10.1177_2325967120922526
pmc: PMC7273572
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967120922526Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. 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
Arthrosc Tech. 2018 Apr 09;7(5):e473-e478
pubmed: 29868421
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019 Apr;105(2):257-263
pubmed: 30799174
Arthroscopy. 2018 Sep;34(9):2601-2603
pubmed: 30173799
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Nov;27(11):1969-1977
pubmed: 29980340
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014 Dec;24(8):1367-74
pubmed: 24085654
Shoulder Elbow. 2017 Jan;9(1):23-30
pubmed: 28572847
Arthroscopy. 2019 Aug;35(8):2535-2536
pubmed: 31395197
J Orthop Sci. 2010 May;15(3):310-6
pubmed: 20559798
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1511-8
pubmed: 18443279
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May;(254):81-6
pubmed: 2323151
Arthrosc Tech. 2016 Dec 12;5(6):e1407-e1418
pubmed: 28149739
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2017 Nov/Dec;46(6):266-278
pubmed: 29309442
Arthrosc Tech. 2018 Jan 08;7(2):e97-e103
pubmed: 29552475
Arthroscopy. 2019 Apr;35(4):1243-1253
pubmed: 30878327
Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):459-70
pubmed: 23369443
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;45(13):3149-3157
pubmed: 28345960
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Jul 19;6(7):2325967118785365
pubmed: 30038920
Arthroscopy. 2016 Sep;32(9):1752-60
pubmed: 27062012
Arthrosc Tech. 2013 Nov 01;2(4):e441-5
pubmed: 24400197
Arthroscopy. 2009 Feb;25(2):183-91
pubmed: 19171279
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 May;23(5):642-8
pubmed: 24388150
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Dec;9(4):497-505
pubmed: 29201303
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Nov 02;4(6):e637-41
pubmed: 26870638
Arthroscopy. 2019 Apr;35(4):1269-1277
pubmed: 30878330
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Feb;47(2):379-388
pubmed: 30596519
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jun;26(6):e177-e187
pubmed: 28526423
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Sep;46(11):2707-2716
pubmed: 30080429