Favorable Early Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinical Retear Rates in High-Risk Rotator Cuff Repairs Augmented with a Reinforced Bio-Inductive Implant at One-Year Follow Up.

IF 0.8 Q4 SURGERY Surgical technology international Pub Date : 2024-10-16
Sean McMillan, Elizabeth Ford, Shariff K Bishai
{"title":"Favorable Early Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinical Retear Rates in High-Risk Rotator Cuff Repairs Augmented with a Reinforced Bio-Inductive Implant at One-Year Follow Up.","authors":"Sean McMillan, Elizabeth Ford, Shariff K Bishai","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this article is to examine the risk of early clinical rotator cuff repair failures in high-risk patients who were augmented with a reinforced bio-inductive implant (RBI).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was performed identifying full-thickness rotator cuff repairs (RCR) augmented with an RBI. Inclusion criteria for \"high risk of retear\" were: large (>3cm) and massive (>5cm, >/= 2 tendons) tears, anterior to posterior (AP) tear >2.5cm, infraspinatus fatty atrophy (Goutalier >/= 2), recurrent tears, and at least one comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, active smoker). ROM, VAS, and ASES scores were collected at preoperative, three-month, six-month, and 12-month visits. Clinical failures were defined as complete retear based upon imaging, repeat rotator cuff surgery, VAS score >5 at one-year postoperative, and ASES MCID <27-point improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine patients were found to have undergone RCR with an RBI augmentation. Mean follow up was 26.1 months. Clinical healing rate was 94% (46/49). The need for surgical intervention post RCR was 8.2% (4/49). The complication rate was 14.3% (7/49). VAS scores at three, six, and 12 months compared to preop revealed statistically significant decreases at all timepoints (D-3.9, D-4.6, D-5.2, respectively, p<0.001). ASES scores at three, six, and 12 months compared to pre-surgical scores met the MCID and were found to have statistically significant improvements at all timepoints (D30.7, D40.8, D49.8, respectively, p<0.001). Shoulder ROM (forward flexion/abduction) at three, six, and 12 months compared to preop was found to be statistically significant at all timepoints (p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The addition of an RBI to RCR in patients at high risk of failure demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of range of motion, pain, and functional outcome scores with a low rate of clinical retear at a minimum of one-year follow up.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Many risk factors have been attributed to high retear rates and poor clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RCR. Numerous variations to RCR have been explored to aid in outcomes and decrease failures. This manuscript is the first to examine the use of an RBI as an RCR augment. The implant's bio-inductive properties and strength profile demonstrate promising benefits at early timepoints in this study, indicating that it can improve patient-reported outcomes while decreasing clinical failures in patients at high risk of retear.</p>","PeriodicalId":22194,"journal":{"name":"Surgical technology international","volume":"45 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical technology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this article is to examine the risk of early clinical rotator cuff repair failures in high-risk patients who were augmented with a reinforced bio-inductive implant (RBI).

Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was performed identifying full-thickness rotator cuff repairs (RCR) augmented with an RBI. Inclusion criteria for "high risk of retear" were: large (>3cm) and massive (>5cm, >/= 2 tendons) tears, anterior to posterior (AP) tear >2.5cm, infraspinatus fatty atrophy (Goutalier >/= 2), recurrent tears, and at least one comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, active smoker). ROM, VAS, and ASES scores were collected at preoperative, three-month, six-month, and 12-month visits. Clinical failures were defined as complete retear based upon imaging, repeat rotator cuff surgery, VAS score >5 at one-year postoperative, and ASES MCID <27-point improvement.

Results: Forty-nine patients were found to have undergone RCR with an RBI augmentation. Mean follow up was 26.1 months. Clinical healing rate was 94% (46/49). The need for surgical intervention post RCR was 8.2% (4/49). The complication rate was 14.3% (7/49). VAS scores at three, six, and 12 months compared to preop revealed statistically significant decreases at all timepoints (D-3.9, D-4.6, D-5.2, respectively, p<0.001). ASES scores at three, six, and 12 months compared to pre-surgical scores met the MCID and were found to have statistically significant improvements at all timepoints (D30.7, D40.8, D49.8, respectively, p<0.001). Shoulder ROM (forward flexion/abduction) at three, six, and 12 months compared to preop was found to be statistically significant at all timepoints (p<0.01).

Conclusion: The addition of an RBI to RCR in patients at high risk of failure demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of range of motion, pain, and functional outcome scores with a low rate of clinical retear at a minimum of one-year follow up.

Clinical relevance: Many risk factors have been attributed to high retear rates and poor clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RCR. Numerous variations to RCR have been explored to aid in outcomes and decrease failures. This manuscript is the first to examine the use of an RBI as an RCR augment. The implant's bio-inductive properties and strength profile demonstrate promising benefits at early timepoints in this study, indicating that it can improve patient-reported outcomes while decreasing clinical failures in patients at high risk of retear.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高风险肩袖修复术中使用增强型生物感应植入物的早期患者报告结果和临床再撕裂率在一年随访中表现良好。
简介本文旨在研究使用增强型生物诱导植入物(RBI)的高风险患者早期临床肩袖修复失败的风险:对使用 RBI 增强型全厚肩袖修复术 (RCR) 的患者进行了回顾性病历审查。再撕裂高风险 "的纳入标准为:大面积(>3厘米)和大量(>5厘米,>/= 2条肌腱)撕裂、前向后(AP)撕裂>2.5厘米、冈下脂肪萎缩(Goutalier >/=2)、复发性撕裂以及至少一种合并症(糖尿病、高血压、吸烟)。在术前、术后三个月、六个月和十二个月的随访中收集 ROM、VAS 和 ASES 评分。临床失败的定义是:根据影像学检查完全再撕裂、再次进行肩袖手术、术后一年 VAS 评分大于 5 分以及 ASES MCID 结果:49名患者接受了RCR和RBI增强手术。平均随访时间为 26.1 个月。临床治愈率为 94%(46/49)。RCR术后需要手术干预的比例为8.2%(4/49)。并发症发生率为 14.3%(7/49)。与术前相比,3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月的 VAS 评分在所有时间点均有统计学意义的显著下降(分别为 D-3.9、D-4.6 和 D-5.2,p 结论:临床意义:在RCR失败高风险患者中增加RBI,在活动范围、疼痛和功能结果评分方面都显示出良好的结果,并且在至少一年的随访中临床再撕裂率较低:接受 RCR 的患者再撕裂率高、临床疗效差的风险因素很多。为了提高疗效和减少失败,人们对 RCR 进行了大量改良。本手稿首次研究了使用 RBI 作为 RCR 增强剂。在这项研究中,该植入物的生物诱导特性和强度曲线在早期时间点就显示出了良好的效果,表明它可以改善患者报告的治疗效果,同时降低高再撕裂风险患者的临床失败率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
141
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Hemostatic Powder in Order to Prevent Staple Line Bleeding After Sleeve Gastrectomy in High-Risk Patients: A Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial. Short-Term Outcomes Following Operative Repair of the Burst Abdomen: A Retrospective Review of Different Techniques. Modern Plasma Medicine and Orthopaedic Surgery: A Brief History and Outlook. Does the ArthroSim™ Shoulder Simulation Discriminate Between the Novice and Expert User? An External Validation Study of the ArthroSim™ Shoulder Arthroscopy Simulator. Two Cases of Pylorus-Preserving Pancreatoduodenectomy with Remnant Stomach Preservation in Patients Who Have Undergone Proximal Gastrectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1