4.5 Article

Clinical and anatomic results of surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tears at ten-year minimum follow-up

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 41, Issue 6, Pages 1219-1226

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3456-8

Keywords

Rotator cuff tear; Fatty infiltration; Muscle atrophy; Prognosis factors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical and anatomic results after open rotator cuff repair. Materials and method Fifty-three patients were included in this study. Rotator cuff tears were limited to one tendon in 34, and two tendons or more in 19. The supraspinatus tendon was involved alone in 30 cases, and the subscapularis in four. Clinical, radiographic and MRI evaluations were performed for all patients at ten-year minimum follow-up. Results At 11.4-years average follow-up, satisfactory results were obtained with improvement on pain level, in range of motion with a gain in active anterior elevation and in external rotation as well as in strength in abduction. Absolute Constant score reached 74.7 points and adjusted Constant score 99.6%. SSV was 82.5% with a SST score of 10 points. Osteoarthritis changes increased with follow-up with osteoarthritis lesion in 69% of the cases. MRI evaluation found a re-tear of the repair in 42% of the cases: 30% when only the supraspinatus tendon was initially involved, and 63% when two or more tendons were repaired. Tear size and quality of the repair were the most important prognosis factors for re-tear of the repair. No correlation was found between the occurrence of a new tear and the clinical outcome. Conlcusion Surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tendon tear can produce consistent and lasting pain relief and improvement in range of motion. Re-tear of the repair was not correlated with degradation of clinical results. Best results were obtained for isolated supraspinatus tear with a complete surgical repair.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available