Assessing the accuracy of arthroscopic and open measurements of the size of rotator cuff tears: A simulation-based study.
Arthroscopy
Cuff tear size
Rotator cuff tear
Shoulder
Simulation model
Supraspinatus tear
Journal
World journal of orthopedics
ISSN: 2218-5836
Titre abrégé: World J Orthop
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101576349
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Dec 2021
18 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
21
03
2021
revised:
30
05
2021
accepted:
27
10
2021
entrez:
17
1
2022
pubmed:
18
1
2022
medline:
18
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Arthroscopic procedures are commonly performed for rotator cuff pathology. Repair of rotator cuff tears is a commonly performed procedure. The intraoperative evaluation of the tear size and pattern contributes to the choice and completion of the technique and the prognosis of the repair. To compare the arthroscopic and open measurements with the real dimensions of three different patterns of simulated rotator cuff tears of known size using a plastic shoulder model. We created three sizes and patterns of simulated supraspinatus tears on a plastic shoulder model (small and large U-shaped, oval-shaped). Six orthopaedic surgeons with three levels of experience measured the dimensions of the tears arthroscopically, using a 5 mm probe, repeating the procedure three times, and then using a ruler (open technique). Arthroscopic, open and computerized measurements were compared. A constant underestimation of specific dimensions of the tears was found when measured with an arthroscope, compared to both the open and computerized measurements (mean differences up to -7.5 ± 5.8 mm, This study suggests that arthroscopic measurements of full-thickness rotator cuff tears constantly underestimate the dimensions of the tears. Development of more precise arthroscopic techniques or tools for the evaluation of the size and type of rotator cuff tears are necessary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Arthroscopic procedures are commonly performed for rotator cuff pathology. Repair of rotator cuff tears is a commonly performed procedure. The intraoperative evaluation of the tear size and pattern contributes to the choice and completion of the technique and the prognosis of the repair.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare the arthroscopic and open measurements with the real dimensions of three different patterns of simulated rotator cuff tears of known size using a plastic shoulder model.
METHODS
METHODS
We created three sizes and patterns of simulated supraspinatus tears on a plastic shoulder model (small and large U-shaped, oval-shaped). Six orthopaedic surgeons with three levels of experience measured the dimensions of the tears arthroscopically, using a 5 mm probe, repeating the procedure three times, and then using a ruler (open technique). Arthroscopic, open and computerized measurements were compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A constant underestimation of specific dimensions of the tears was found when measured with an arthroscope, compared to both the open and computerized measurements (mean differences up to -7.5 ± 5.8 mm,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that arthroscopic measurements of full-thickness rotator cuff tears constantly underestimate the dimensions of the tears. Development of more precise arthroscopic techniques or tools for the evaluation of the size and type of rotator cuff tears are necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35036340
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.983
pmc: PMC8696604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
983-990Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
Open Orthop J. 2016 Jul 21;10:330-338
pubmed: 27708735
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3809-3819
pubmed: 26197937
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Jul;36(7):1310-6
pubmed: 18413680
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Sep;47(11):2659-2669
pubmed: 31411899
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):732-42
pubmed: 20194334
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 May-Jun;11(3):219-24
pubmed: 12070492
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Jun;17(6):691-4
pubmed: 19002667
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Feb;10(2):RC18-21
pubmed: 27042543
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 May;11(5):TC24-TC27
pubmed: 28658874
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Dec;18(12):1707-11
pubmed: 20217391
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Mar 02;57(3):
pubmed: 33801508
Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):459-70
pubmed: 23369443
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1073-80
pubmed: 24725900
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Jan;29(1):202-209
pubmed: 32152691
Int Orthop. 2019 May;43(5):1171-1177
pubmed: 30159803
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Aug;135(8):1055-61
pubmed: 25944157
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):835-41
pubmed: 20357403
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Apr;66(4):563-7
pubmed: 6707035
World J Orthop. 2015 Dec 18;6(11):902-18
pubmed: 26716086
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Feb;23(2):567-72
pubmed: 23996071
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Feb;47(2):379-388
pubmed: 30596519