Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 5;7(2):e21.00148.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00148. eCollection 2022 Apr-Jun.

Effect of Abduction Brace Wearing Compliance on the Results of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Florian Grubhofer  1 , Lukas Ernstbrunner  1 , Christian Gerber  1 , Bettina Hochreiter  1 , Ines Schwihla  1 , Karl Wieser  1 , Samy Bouaicha  1
Affiliations

Effect of Abduction Brace Wearing Compliance on the Results of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Florian Grubhofer et al. JB JS Open Access. .

Abstract

The benefit of protective bracing after rotator cuff reconstruction has been debated for many years, although immobilization compliance has never been assessed objectively to date. In a previous study, compliance with the wearing of an abduction brace was measured for the first time with use of temperature-sensitive sensors. The purpose of the present follow-up study was to assess the effect of immobilization compliance on tendon-healing after rotator cuff repair.

Methods: The clinical and radiographic outcomes for 46 consecutive patients with objectively assessed abduction brace wearing compliance after arthroscopic repair of a superior rotator cuff tear were prospectively analyzed. Rotator cuff integrity was examined with ultrasound. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the relative Constant-Murley score (RCS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and pain and patient satisfaction ratings. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the optimal cutoff value of abduction brace compliance for discriminating between shoulders that will and will not have a retear and the association of compliance with the failure of rotator cuff repair.

Results: After a mean duration of follow-up of 20 ± 9 months, the odds ratio for having a rotator cuff repair failure was 13-fold higher for patients with a compliance rate of <60% (p = 0.037). The retear rate was 3% (1 of 35 patients) in the high-compliance cohort (≥60% compliance) and 27% (3 of 11) in the low-compliance cohort (<60% compliance) (p = 0.037). No differences in RCS, SSV, pain, or postoperative patient satisfaction were observed between patients with ≥60% compliance and those with <60% compliance.

Conclusions: Patients with a compliance rate of <60% had a 13-fold increase in the risk of rotator cuff retear. The 2 patients with the lowest compliance rates (11% and 22%) both had retears. Due to the small sample size, no final conclusions can be drawn regarding the influence of immobilization compliance on tendon-healing after rotator cuff repair. These findings justify a prospective trial with a larger cohort to confirm or disprove the value of compliance with abduction bracing.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A388).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Illustration of the size of the temperature-sensitive sensor.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ROC curve (blue line) to determine the optimum cutoff value of abduction brace compliance for discriminating between intact and failed rotator cuff repair. The reference line indicating no discrimination is indicated in red. The area under the curve was 0.747.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Compliance rate ranking of all 46 patients. The red bars represent patients with retears. Patients 1 to 11 constituted the low-compliance group, and patients 12 to 46 constituted the high-compliance group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Felsch Q, Mai V, Durchholz H, Flury M, Lenz M, Capellen C, Audigé L. Complications Within 6 Months After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Registry-Based Evaluation According to a Core Event Set and Severity Grading. Arthroscopy. 2021. Jan;37(1):50-8. - PubMed
    1. Keener JD, Galatz LM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Steger-May K, Stobbs-Cucchi G, Patton R, Yamaguchi K. A prospective evaluation of survivorship of asymptomatic degenerative rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015. Jan 21;97(2):89-98. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nho SJ, Brown BS, Lyman S, Adler RS, Altchek DW, MacGillivray JD. Prospective analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prognostic factors affecting clinical and ultrasound outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009. Jan-Feb;18(1):13-20. - PubMed
    1. Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005. Jun;87(6):1229-40. - PubMed
    1. Liem D, Bartl C, Lichtenberg S, Magosch P, Habermeyer P. Clinical outcome and tendon integrity of arthroscopic versus mini-open supraspinatus tendon repair: a magnetic resonance imaging-controlled matched-pair analysis. Arthroscopy. 2007. May;23(5):514-21. - PubMed