Treatment of non-arthritic pseudoparetic shoulders with irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: arthroscopic procedures yield comparable midterm results to reverse arthroplasty.
Arthroscopic treatment
Irreparable massive rotator cuff tear
Midterm results
Pseudoparesis
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2021
16 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
29
10
2020
accepted:
04
02
2021
entrez:
17
2
2021
pubmed:
18
2
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (IMRCTs) are a well-known cause for functional limitation and difficult to treat. Although several joint-preserving as well as joint-replacing procedures were found to provide pain relief and gain of function, midterm results are scarce, particularly in pseudoparetic shoulder joints unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to compare the midterm functional outcomes of arthroscopic procedures to those of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in pseudoparetic shoulders with IMRCTs unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis. All patients who underwent either joint-preserving (group A) or joint-replacing (group B) procedures for IMRCT unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis with a pseudoparetic shoulder function were retrospectively included. Clinical assessment included the Constant Score (CS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) and the Visual Analog Score (VAS) at baseline and at latest follow-up. Furthermore, the complication and revision rates were assessed. Overall, a total 56 patients were included of whom each 28 patients formed group A (male, 36%) and B (male, 53%) with a mean patient age at time of surgery of 70 ± 7 years and 72 ± 7 years, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 56 ± 17 months. At final follow-up, the total CS (group A: 66 ± 14 points; group B 54 ± 15 points) was significantly increased after arthroscopic treatment when compared to RTSA (p=0.011). However, no significant differences were detected with SSV (p=0.583) and VAS (p=0.536). Although complication rate (11% versus 18%) was not significantly different (p=0.705), number of revision surgeries was significantly higher in group B when compared to group A (p=0.041). In non-arthritic pseudoparetic shoulders, both joint-preserving and joint-replacing procedures yielded good clinical midterm outcomes for the treatment of degenerative IMRCTs. Despite of comparable functional and satisfactory functional improvement, increased complication rates and surgical invasiveness outweigh the benefits of primary RTSA and therefore reserve this procedure to a second-line treatment in pseudoparetic patients without any signs of severe cuff arthropathy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (IMRCTs) are a well-known cause for functional limitation and difficult to treat. Although several joint-preserving as well as joint-replacing procedures were found to provide pain relief and gain of function, midterm results are scarce, particularly in pseudoparetic shoulder joints unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to compare the midterm functional outcomes of arthroscopic procedures to those of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in pseudoparetic shoulders with IMRCTs unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients who underwent either joint-preserving (group A) or joint-replacing (group B) procedures for IMRCT unaccompanied by severe osteoarthritis with a pseudoparetic shoulder function were retrospectively included. Clinical assessment included the Constant Score (CS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) and the Visual Analog Score (VAS) at baseline and at latest follow-up. Furthermore, the complication and revision rates were assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, a total 56 patients were included of whom each 28 patients formed group A (male, 36%) and B (male, 53%) with a mean patient age at time of surgery of 70 ± 7 years and 72 ± 7 years, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 56 ± 17 months. At final follow-up, the total CS (group A: 66 ± 14 points; group B 54 ± 15 points) was significantly increased after arthroscopic treatment when compared to RTSA (p=0.011). However, no significant differences were detected with SSV (p=0.583) and VAS (p=0.536). Although complication rate (11% versus 18%) was not significantly different (p=0.705), number of revision surgeries was significantly higher in group B when compared to group A (p=0.041).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In non-arthritic pseudoparetic shoulders, both joint-preserving and joint-replacing procedures yielded good clinical midterm outcomes for the treatment of degenerative IMRCTs. Despite of comparable functional and satisfactory functional improvement, increased complication rates and surgical invasiveness outweigh the benefits of primary RTSA and therefore reserve this procedure to a second-line treatment in pseudoparetic patients without any signs of severe cuff arthropathy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33593357
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04050-w
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04050-w
pmc: PMC7885458
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90(11):2423-31
pubmed: 18978411
Arthroscopy. 1994 Aug;10(4):363-70
pubmed: 7945631
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jun;77(6):857-66
pubmed: 7782358
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):786-93
pubmed: 22307079
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
Arthroscopy. 2007 Sep;23(9):1019-22
pubmed: 17868843
Arthroscopy. 2007 Apr;23(4):347-54
pubmed: 17418325
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993 Mar;2(2):57-63
pubmed: 22971670
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):146-57
pubmed: 21134666
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):550-4
pubmed: 14671517
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Nov;28(11):2113-2120
pubmed: 31353301
Arthroscopy. 2016 Sep;32(9):1771-80
pubmed: 27132772
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Nov;25(11):1803-1809
pubmed: 27282734
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;43(10):2373-8
pubmed: 26297521
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May;(254):92-6
pubmed: 2323152
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3828-3837
pubmed: 26254089
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jan;88(1):113-20
pubmed: 16391256
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Nov;88(11):1533-8
pubmed: 17075105
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2 Suppl):S20-9
pubmed: 21281919
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89(9):1928-34
pubmed: 17768188
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):e265-e277
pubmed: 28684233
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Apr;86(3):388-95
pubmed: 15125127
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Nov 3;92(15):2544-56
pubmed: 21048173
J Orthop Traumatol. 2010 Mar;11(1):13-20
pubmed: 20198404
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Jul;67(6):974-9
pubmed: 4019548
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):600-6
pubmed: 19481959
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Aug;187(2):376-82
pubmed: 16861541
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Oct 18;99(20):1721-1729
pubmed: 29040126
Arthroscopy. 2017 Apr;33(4):716-725
pubmed: 27939409
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019 Sep;105(5):813-818
pubmed: 31204180
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Nov-Dec;8(6):599-605
pubmed: 10633896
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Apr;82(4):505-15
pubmed: 10761941
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1476-86
pubmed: 15995114
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Mar;29(3):521-526
pubmed: 31594728
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jun;26(6):e177-e187
pubmed: 28526423