Evaluation of Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Concomitant Biceps Intervention: A Retrospective Review of Patient Outcomes.


Journal

The American journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 1552-3365
Titre abrégé: Am J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7609541

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 7 4 2022
medline: 7 5 2022
entrez: 6 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes. The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded. There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5; Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Biceps tendon pathology is common in patients with rotator cuff tears. Leaving biceps pathology untreated in rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) may lead to suboptimal outcomes.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
The purpose was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RCR versus patients who underwent RCR with concomitant biceps treatment. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in clinical outcomes between groups.
STUDY DESIGN
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
A total of 244 patients who underwent RCR in 2016 were included. Patient characteristics, presence of concomitant biceps pathology, pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, rotator cuff failure, revision surgery, and complications were recorded.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences between patients who underwent isolated RCR (n = 143) and those who underwent RCR with biceps treatment (n = 101) at 2 years postoperatively in ASES scores (RCR, 81.5; RCR+biceps treatment, 79.5;
CONCLUSION
Addressing biceps pathology when performing RCR resulted in similar rates of cuff failure, revision RCR, and complications, as well as a similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes when compared with isolated RCR at 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, when comparing tenotomy versus tenodesis and arthroscopic versus subpectoral tenodesis, comparable outcomes with regard to rate of rotator cuff repair failure, revision RCR, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were found.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35384741
doi: 10.1177/03635465221085661
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1534-1540

Auteurs

Daniel A Nemirov (DA)

Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Zachary Herman (Z)

Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Ryan W Paul (RW)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Matthew Beucherie (M)

Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Christopher J Hadley (CJ)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Michael G Ciccotti (MG)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Kevin B Freedman (KB)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Brandon J Erickson (BJ)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Sommer Hammoud (S)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Meghan E Bishop (ME)

Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, New York, New York, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH