Abstract

BackgroundMassive rotator cuff surgical management can be challenging. Controversy exists in the literature regarding the potential benefit of full head coverage for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this study was to compare re-tear rate and clinical outcome of arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears in relation to the achievement of full humeral head footprint coverage or not.Hypothesis We hypothesized that there will be no difference in re-tear rate and clinical outcomes between full and partial coverage rotator cuff repairs. Patients and methodsA retrospective analysis of all adult patients with a massive rotator cuff tear who underwent arthroscopic repair with a minimum five years follow-up was performed. Outcomes analyzed included re-tear rate, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Shoulder Score, and the Penn Shoulder Score. Correlation and subgroup analyses were performed in order to evaluate whether age, symptom duration, tear size, coverage percentage, and fatty infiltration had any effect in outcome. ResultsThe average ASES score was 76.3±25.2, and average Penn Shoulder Score was 75.8±23.1 at 7.9 years mean follow-up in 27 patients analyzed. Re-tear rate was similar between full and partial footprint coverage repair with 2 versus 4 failures, respectively (p=0.64). ASES and Penn Shoulder scores were 84.2 and 83.7 for full rotator cuff repair versus 70.6 and 71.1, for partial coverage repair (p=0.20 and p=0.22, respectively). The percentage of head coverage and the tear size were both found to be significantly correlated with outcome, with coefficient of determination R2 of 0.40 and 0.217, respectively, while a global fatty degeneration index GFDI <1.5 was associated with improved functional outcome. DiscussionNo difference in failure rate and functional outcome was detected between full and partial coverage rotator cuff repair. The size of the tear and fatty infiltration were inversely correlated with functional score while the percentage of coverage achieved was positively correlated with favorable outcome. Level of EvidenceIII; retrospective comparative study.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.