4.5 Article

Functional Outcome and Healing of Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears Repaired With a Load-Sharing Rip-Stop Construct

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tenex Health
  2. Arthrex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To prospectively review functional outcomes and healing rates of large and massive rotator cuff tears repaired with a load-sharing rip-stop (LSRS) technique. Methods: Twenty-one consecutive patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with an LSRS construct between January and December 2014. Seventeen patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were included. Four patients did not complete clinical evaluations and functional outcome scores at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and were lost to follow-up. Ultrasound imaging was used to assess for rotator cuff healing at a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. Range of motion, strength, and functional outcome scores were evaluated at final follow-up. Results: Mean active forward elevation improved from 109 degrees preoperatively to 153 degrees postoperatively, and mean supraspinatus strength improved by 1 strength grade, from 3.5 preoperatively to 4.4 postoperatively. When we compared preoperative and postoperative values, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 40.8 to 89.5, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score improved from 32.8 to 83.1, the Simple Shoulder Test score improved from 3.8 to 10.3, and the pain score on a visual analog scale decreased from 4.8 to 0.8 (P < .001). Of 17 patients, 13 (82%) were satisfied with their outcomes. Ultrasound evaluation 6 months after surgery showed complete healing in 53%, partial healing in 29%, and no healing in 18%. Conclusions: The LSRS construct showed satisfactory functional outcomes with reasonable healing rates in an otherwise challenging subset of rotator cuff tears. This construct may be an alternative for tears not amenable to double-row repair.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据