[Open transosseous reconstruction of the rotator cuff: clinical outcome, influencing factors and complications]
- PMID: 23149767
- DOI: 10.1007/s00104-012-2399-2
[Open transosseous reconstruction of the rotator cuff: clinical outcome, influencing factors and complications]
Abstract
Background: Open transosseous rotator cuff reconstruction (RCR) still plays a prominent role in current treatment of rotator cuff tears. This study aimed to examine mid-term and long-term results of clinical outcome, determine influencing factors and analyze complications.
Patients: This retrospective cohort study included 104 Patients following standardized open transosseous RCR. After a mean follow-up period of 38.3 months (range 12-71 months) 88 Patients (89 shoulders) were available for examination. The mean age of Patients at surgery was 57.1 years (range 29-83 years). Standardized clinical examination included sonography and assessment of the absolute, relative and intra-individual constant scores (CS(abs), CS(rel), CS(intra)), Oxford shoulder score (OSS), American shoulder and elbow surgeons' score (ASESS) and single assessment numeric evaluation score (SANES). The level of significance for analysis of variance (ANOVA) was set at p < 0.05 (95% confidence interval).
Results: Mean values and standard deviations (σ) were: CS(abs) = 71 points (σ: 20.3), CS(rel) = 76 points (σ: 20.7), CS(intra) = 86 % (σ: 19.5), OSS(mod) = 77 points (σ: 20.6), ASESS = 73 points (σ: 23.3) and SANES = 72 % (σ: 22.0). Clinical results were superior when the complaints were initiated by trauma (p < 0.05). Patients with massive tears showed inferior results relative to all outcome measures (p < 0.05). Concomitant pathologies even without surgical relevance were associated with inferior outcome (p < 0.05). The factors surgeon, suture material and acromioplasty did not exert a significant influence. Revision surgery was required in 12 out of 89 (13.5 %) cases and re-ruptures occurred in 19.1%.
Conclusions: Objective and subjective clinical results following open transosseous RCR were comparable to those of previously described open and arthroscopic techniques. Results were superior when the complaints were initiated by trauma. Massive tears and concomitant pathologies even without surgical relevance were associated with inferior clinical outcome. Open or arthroscopic acromioplasty did not add further benefits. A standardized operative procedure led to reproducible results irrespective of the factor surgeon.
Similar articles
-
Clinical and functional outcomes of a novel transosseous device to treat rotator cuff tears: A minimum 2-year follow-up.J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 Sep-Dec;27(3):2309499019875172. doi: 10.1177/2309499019875172. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019. PMID: 31530075
-
[Massive tears of rotator cuff - comparison of mini-open and arthroscopic techniques. Part 1. Mini-open technique].Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2006 Dec;73(6):387-93. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2006. PMID: 17266840 Czech.
-
Metallic versus biodegradable suture anchors for rotator cuff repair: a case control study.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Oct 25;20(1):477. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2834-3. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019. PMID: 31653247 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Superior Capsular Reconstruction for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Critical Analysis Review.JBJS Rev. 2019 Jun;7(6):e1. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00072. JBJS Rev. 2019. PMID: 31166218 Review. No abstract available.
-
All-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2007 Dec;15(4):208-15. doi: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3181595c06. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2007. PMID: 18004220 Review.
Cited by
-
Rotator cuff tear: A detailed update.Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2015 Feb 11;2(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.asmart.2014.11.003. eCollection 2015 Jan. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2015. PMID: 29264234 Free PMC article. Review.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical