A 5-Year Follow-up of Patients Treated for Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Prospective Cohort Study.
nonoperative treatment
operative treatment
prognostic factors
regression modeling
rotator cuff tears
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:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
23
12
2020
accepted:
25
01
2021
entrez:
13
9
2021
pubmed:
14
9
2021
medline:
14
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The evidence in support of operative versus nonoperative management of rotator cuff tears (RCTs) is limited, based primarily on observational studies of lower scientific merit. To (1) compare the efficacy of operative versus nonoperative management of full-thickness RCTs across time and (2) detect variables that predict success within each group. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. We included patients with symptomatic full-thickness RCTs who were enrolled in an institutional shoulder registry. Patient enrollment began in 2009 and continued until early 2018. The following outcome measures were collected at baseline, then 6 months, 1 year, and annually up to 5 years postoperatively: Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) mental and physical component subscales (MCS and PCS, respectively), 100-point Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) rating, and 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and for patient satisfaction. We performed regression models for all outcome variables across all 5 years of follow-up and included the following predictor variables: treatment type (operative vs nonoperative), sex, age, symptom duration, smoking status, diabetes status, injury side, and obesity status. A total of 595 patients were included. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression revealed that patients who received operative treatment did better across time on all outcomes. Women (n = 242; 40.7%) did not fare as well as did men on the ASES, WORC, or VR-12 PCS. Older patients tended to improve less on the VR-12 PCS and more on the VR12-MCS. Patients with longer symptom duration at baseline had better scores across time on the ASES, WORC, VAS for pain, and SANE. Current or recent smokers and patients with diabetes tended to have lower scores on all measures across time. For changes in scores from baseline, patients in the operative group improved to a larger degree out to 3 years compared with those in the nonoperative group. Patients with RCTs tended to improve regardless of whether they received operative or nonoperative treatment, but patients who underwent operative treatment improved faster. There appear to be several predictors of improved and worsened outcomes for patients with RCTs undergoing operative or nonoperative treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The evidence in support of operative versus nonoperative management of rotator cuff tears (RCTs) is limited, based primarily on observational studies of lower scientific merit.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To (1) compare the efficacy of operative versus nonoperative management of full-thickness RCTs across time and (2) detect variables that predict success within each group.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS
METHODS
We included patients with symptomatic full-thickness RCTs who were enrolled in an institutional shoulder registry. Patient enrollment began in 2009 and continued until early 2018. The following outcome measures were collected at baseline, then 6 months, 1 year, and annually up to 5 years postoperatively: Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) mental and physical component subscales (MCS and PCS, respectively), 100-point Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) rating, and 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and for patient satisfaction. We performed regression models for all outcome variables across all 5 years of follow-up and included the following predictor variables: treatment type (operative vs nonoperative), sex, age, symptom duration, smoking status, diabetes status, injury side, and obesity status.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 595 patients were included. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression revealed that patients who received operative treatment did better across time on all outcomes. Women (n = 242; 40.7%) did not fare as well as did men on the ASES, WORC, or VR-12 PCS. Older patients tended to improve less on the VR-12 PCS and more on the VR12-MCS. Patients with longer symptom duration at baseline had better scores across time on the ASES, WORC, VAS for pain, and SANE. Current or recent smokers and patients with diabetes tended to have lower scores on all measures across time. For changes in scores from baseline, patients in the operative group improved to a larger degree out to 3 years compared with those in the nonoperative group.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with RCTs tended to improve regardless of whether they received operative or nonoperative treatment, but patients who underwent operative treatment improved faster. There appear to be several predictors of improved and worsened outcomes for patients with RCTs undergoing operative or nonoperative treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34514008
doi: 10.1177/23259671211021589
pii: 10.1177_23259671211021589
pmc: PMC8427933
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211021589Informations 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: Internal funding was received for a portion of this work from the Francis and Kenneth Eisenberg Fund, University of Michigan. A.B. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Flexion Therapeutics, and Smith & Nephew; nonconsulting fees from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew; royalties from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew; education support from Arthrex and CDC Medical; and hospitality payments from GE Healthcare. B.M. has received consulting fees from FH Orthopedics and Arthrex and royalties, speaking fees, and education support from FH Orthopedics. 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 Sports Med. 2011 Oct;39(10):2064-70
pubmed: 21737833
Br J Sports Med. 2007 Apr;41(4):200-10
pubmed: 17264144
J Hand Ther. 2004 Apr-Jun;17(2):274-99
pubmed: 15162111
Radiology. 2006 Nov;241(2):485-91
pubmed: 17057069
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Nov-Dec;11(6):587-94
pubmed: 12469084
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep;87(9):2006-11
pubmed: 16140816
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Mar-Apr;16(2):181-7
pubmed: 17399623
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005 Jan;13(1):55-9
pubmed: 14689169
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jul;82-A(7):970-9
pubmed: 10901312
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Nov-Dec;13(6):593-8
pubmed: 15570226
J Ambul Care Manage. 2006 Apr-Jun;29(2):182-8
pubmed: 16552327
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Oct;439:101-8
pubmed: 16205147
Clin J Sport Med. 2008 May;18(3):266-72
pubmed: 18469569
Ups J Med Sci. 2010 Aug;115(3):193-200
pubmed: 20636254
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Aug;24(8):1274-81
pubmed: 26189808
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Sep;20(6):904-8
pubmed: 21420321
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Sep;86(9):1973-82
pubmed: 15342760
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jun;19(6):368-79
pubmed: 21628648
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Aug;25(8):1303-11
pubmed: 27422460
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Nov-Dec;7(6):565-72
pubmed: 9883415
Health Econ. 1993 Oct;2(3):217-27
pubmed: 8275167
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;43(10):2572-82
pubmed: 25622986
Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Aug 03;6(8):2325967118788531
pubmed: 30094270
Acta Orthop Belg. 1991;57(2):124-9
pubmed: 1872155
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Mar-Apr;27(2):214-21
pubmed: 10102104
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2005 Dec;34(12 Suppl):5-9
pubmed: 16450690
J Pediatr Orthop. 2007 Mar;27(2):209-13
pubmed: 17314648
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1993;112(2):61-4
pubmed: 8457412
Radiographics. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):1045-65
pubmed: 16844931
Skeletal Radiol. 2011 Mar;40(3):255-69
pubmed: 20033149
Ann Rheum Dis. 2004 Apr;63(4):335-41
pubmed: 15020324
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 May-Jun;10(3):199-203
pubmed: 11408898
Arthroscopy. 2006 Feb;22(2):125-9
pubmed: 16458796
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Sep 17;96(18):1504-14
pubmed: 25232074
Clin J Sport Med. 2003 Mar;13(2):84-92
pubmed: 12629425
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Aug;27(8):1393-1400
pubmed: 30016692
J Ambul Care Manage. 2004 Jul-Sep;27(3):263-80
pubmed: 15287216
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Mar;27(3):444-448
pubmed: 29433644
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Mar;29(3):459-470
pubmed: 31924516
Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1995;54(1):30-1
pubmed: 8541777
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994 Nov;3(6):347-52
pubmed: 22958838
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Mar;27(3):572-576
pubmed: 29169957
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 Mar;77(2):296-8
pubmed: 7706351
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Jul-Aug;8(4):296-9
pubmed: 10471998
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 May-Jun;7(3):228-37
pubmed: 9658347
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Oct 15;51(5):819-28
pubmed: 15478159
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan;77(1):10-5
pubmed: 7822341
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 17;153(4):246-55
pubmed: 20621893
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Mar;466(3):634-8
pubmed: 18264851