4.3 Article

Long-term follow-up of cases of rotator cuff tear treated conservatively

Journal

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 491-494

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.012

Keywords

Rotator cuff tear; conservative treatment; long-term follow-up

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study clarified the long-term results of conservative treatment of rotator cuff tears. Materials and methods: This study focused on 103 shoulders diagnosed with rotator cuff tears by magnetic resonance imaging or arthrography at our institution from 1996 to 1999. Sixty-five shoulders were followed up by telephone survey and 43 of these shoulders were evaluated; 11 shoulders were excluded because the patient had died, 10 shoulders because of severe dementia, and 1 shoulder that had undergone trauma. The mean patient age for these 43 shoulders at the time of diagnosis was 62 years, and the mean follow-up period was 13 years. The pain score (30 points) and the activities-of-daily-life score (10 points) of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association shoulder scoring system were determined. Results: The mean pain score was 25.4 points, and the proportion of patients with no pain or with only slight pain was 88%. The mean score for activities of daily life was 9.4 points, and the proportion of patients with no disturbance in daily life was 72%. The patients with fewer than 20 points out of the possible 40 points (30 points for pain score plus 10 points for activities-of-daily-life score) were significantly younger than the other patients. Conclusions: In cases of rotator cuff tears treated conservatively, at 13 years after diagnosis, about 90% of patients had no or only slight pain and about 70% had no disturbance in activities of daily life. However, the younger patients tended to have more significant pain or disorder in daily life more than 10 years after diagnosis. (C) 2012 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available