Comparison of Superior Capsular Reconstruction and Partial Infraspinatus Repair: A Matched-Pair Analysis of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears.
irreparable tears
partial rotator cuff repair
shoulder rotator cuff
superior capsular 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:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
18
08
2020
accepted:
04
09
2020
entrez:
19
3
2021
pubmed:
20
3
2021
medline:
20
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) represents a new option for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of SCR and compare them with the outcomes of partial repair (PR) of the infraspinatus tendon. The hypothesis was that there would be no significant differences between the clinical and radiologic outcome parameters of SCR and PR after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Of 21 patients who underwent SCR, 20 patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to sex, age, and tear configuration with 20 of 60 patients who had undergone PR; all patients were prospectively evaluated for a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The investigated outcome measures included the Constant score; Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and radiologic analysis of acromiohumeral distance (AHD) and humeral head centralization (HHC). There were no differences in the demographic data between the SCR and PR groups. The mean age of both groups was 62.3 years (range, 47-79 years), the mean tear configuration was Bateman 3.0 and Patte 2.8, and the mean follow-up period was 29.4 months (range, 24-53 months). At final follow-up, no significant differences were seen between the SCR and PR groups with regard to Constant score (77.1 vs 82.7), age- and sex-adapted Constant score (85.5% vs 91.4%), DASH score (15.6 vs 7.8), or WORC index (81.1 vs 90.4). No significant differences in the AHD or HHC were seen between the groups. The reoperation rate was 4.8% (1/21) in the SCR cohort and 15% (9/60) in the PR cohort. Both SCR and PR resulted in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 techniques. Further follow-up is needed to determine whether there are long-term differences in HHC and development of cuff tear arthropathy. Further investigations should also focus on the cost-effectiveness of the respective procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) represents a new option for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of SCR and compare them with the outcomes of partial repair (PR) of the infraspinatus tendon. The hypothesis was that there would be no significant differences between the clinical and radiologic outcome parameters of SCR and PR after a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
Of 21 patients who underwent SCR, 20 patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to sex, age, and tear configuration with 20 of 60 patients who had undergone PR; all patients were prospectively evaluated for a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The investigated outcome measures included the Constant score; Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score; and radiologic analysis of acromiohumeral distance (AHD) and humeral head centralization (HHC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were no differences in the demographic data between the SCR and PR groups. The mean age of both groups was 62.3 years (range, 47-79 years), the mean tear configuration was Bateman 3.0 and Patte 2.8, and the mean follow-up period was 29.4 months (range, 24-53 months). At final follow-up, no significant differences were seen between the SCR and PR groups with regard to Constant score (77.1 vs 82.7), age- and sex-adapted Constant score (85.5% vs 91.4%), DASH score (15.6 vs 7.8), or WORC index (81.1 vs 90.4). No significant differences in the AHD or HHC were seen between the groups. The reoperation rate was 4.8% (1/21) in the SCR cohort and 15% (9/60) in the PR cohort.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both SCR and PR resulted in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 2-year follow-up, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 techniques. Further follow-up is needed to determine whether there are long-term differences in HHC and development of cuff tear arthropathy. Further investigations should also focus on the cost-effectiveness of the respective procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33738310
doi: 10.1177/2325967120984264
pii: 10.1177_2325967120984264
pmc: PMC7934040
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967120984264Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.G. and M.K. are medical advisors for Arthrex GmbH. A.V. is a consultant for DJO Global. 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
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 Jul-Aug;45(5):320-4
pubmed: 27552457
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Dec;22(12):1650-5
pubmed: 23850308
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jun;28(6):761-8
pubmed: 22317798
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Oct;20(7):1170-7
pubmed: 21277807
Arthroscopy. 2020 Apr;36(4):1011-1019
pubmed: 31953193
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jan;29(1):e11-e21
pubmed: 31405714
Arthroscopy. 2020 Feb;36(2):373-380
pubmed: 31864817
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Sep;(390):107-18
pubmed: 11550856
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May;(254):81-6
pubmed: 2323151
Arthroscopy. 2017 Sep;33(9):1639-1644
pubmed: 28602388
Arthroscopy. 1994 Aug;10(4):363-70
pubmed: 7945631
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
Acta Biomed. 2017 Oct 18;88(4S):75-80
pubmed: 29083357
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Mar-Apr;14(2):121-7
pubmed: 15789003
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Mar 21;94(6):e34
pubmed: 22438007
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Dec 23;4(6):e833-9
pubmed: 27284520
Arthroscopy. 2013 Aug;29(8):1275-82
pubmed: 23906267
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Apr;41(4):872-9
pubmed: 23423315
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jan;34(1):93-99
pubmed: 29146165
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jan;35(1):22-28
pubmed: 30389128
Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):459-70
pubmed: 23369443
Acta Orthop Scand. 1984 Feb;55(1):57-8
pubmed: 6702430
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Dec;27(12):3890-3896
pubmed: 30888449
Arthroscopy. 1994 Feb;10(1):4-19
pubmed: 8166901
J Orthop. 2018 Aug 16;15(3):862-868
pubmed: 30166800
J Orthop Traumatol. 2010 Mar;11(1):13-20
pubmed: 20198404
Arthroscopy. 2009 Mar;25(3):282-9
pubmed: 19245991
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2019;86(4):264-270
pubmed: 31524587
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003 Jun 16;4:11
pubmed: 12809562
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1996;82(5):379-85
pubmed: 8991160
Orthop Clin North Am. 1997 Jan;28(1):125-32
pubmed: 9024437
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019 Jun;12(2):173-180
pubmed: 30927142
Orthopedics. 2017 Jul 1;40(4):e735-e738
pubmed: 28632288
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 May-Jun;14(3):279-85
pubmed: 15889027
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jun;34(6):1764-1773
pubmed: 29456069
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017 Jan;137(1):95-103
pubmed: 27957596
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Nov 30;4(6):e751-5
pubmed: 27284506
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1423-30
pubmed: 26944572
Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Oct 12;6(5):e1559-e1566
pubmed: 29354474
World J Orthop. 2014 Nov 18;5(5):557-65
pubmed: 25405083
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6S):S100-S109
pubmed: 31196503
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jul;26(7):2205-2213
pubmed: 29594325
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
Am J Sports Med. 1994 Nov-Dec;22(6):779-88
pubmed: 7856802
Orthopedics. 2016 May 1;39(3):145-51
pubmed: 27214881
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 Mar 31;12:64
pubmed: 21453470