Arthroscopic Margin Convergence Repair Without Suture Anchors Improves Clinical Outcomes for Full- and Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears

{"title":"Arthroscopic Margin Convergence Repair Without Suture Anchors Improves Clinical Outcomes for Full- and Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To evaluate the clinical outcome scores of an arthroscopic margin convergence technique without the use of suture anchors to repair different types of rotator cuff tears and to determine whether the type or extent of the tear has an effect on clinical outcome scores after this procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients receiving arthroscopic margin convergence repair without suture anchors for rotator cuff tears from 2013 to 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Arthroscopically determined partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tears with a minimum follow-up period of 20 months were included. Outcomes were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score; and visual analog scale (VAS) score. A 2-tailed distribution paired <em>t</em> test was used to determine statistical significance (<em>P</em> &lt; .05) between preoperative scores and scores at final follow-up. Correlation tests and linear regression analysis were used to determine the correlation between various clinical variables and outcomes. A cohort-specific minimal clinically important difference analysis was performed for each outcome score, calculated as one-half of the standard deviation of the delta score.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 38 patients were included for analysis: 12 with partial-thickness tears and 26 with full-thickness tears. The mean postoperative follow-up period was 33.9 months (range, 22.2-94.5 months), with a minimum follow-up period of 22 months. The mean age of the patients was 62 ± 15.1 years. The minimal clinically important difference values for the ASES, UCLA, and VAS scores were 9.68, 2.92, and 1.13, respectively. There were significant improvements in the ASES (from 29.3 ± 18.3 preoperatively to 93.7 ± 8.3 postoperatively, <em>P</em> = .001), UCLA (from 14.3 ± 6.2 to 32.8 ± 2.6, <em>P</em> = .001), and VAS (from 7.37 ± 1.8 to 0.63 ± 1.02, <em>P</em> = .001) clinical outcome scores. However, patients with either Patte stage 3 retraction (<em>P</em> = .033 for ASES score and <em>P</em> = .020 for UCLA score) or U-shaped tears (<em>P</em> = .047 for ASES score and <em>P</em> = .050 for UCLA score) had significantly lower clinical outcome scores than patients with less severe retraction or differently shaped tears.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The arthroscopic margin convergence technique without the use of suture anchors may be a suitable option in patients with partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tears.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, therapeutic case series.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34631,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000737","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcome scores of an arthroscopic margin convergence technique without the use of suture anchors to repair different types of rotator cuff tears and to determine whether the type or extent of the tear has an effect on clinical outcome scores after this procedure.

Methods

Patients receiving arthroscopic margin convergence repair without suture anchors for rotator cuff tears from 2013 to 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Arthroscopically determined partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tears with a minimum follow-up period of 20 months were included. Outcomes were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score; and visual analog scale (VAS) score. A 2-tailed distribution paired t test was used to determine statistical significance (P < .05) between preoperative scores and scores at final follow-up. Correlation tests and linear regression analysis were used to determine the correlation between various clinical variables and outcomes. A cohort-specific minimal clinically important difference analysis was performed for each outcome score, calculated as one-half of the standard deviation of the delta score.

Results

A total of 38 patients were included for analysis: 12 with partial-thickness tears and 26 with full-thickness tears. The mean postoperative follow-up period was 33.9 months (range, 22.2-94.5 months), with a minimum follow-up period of 22 months. The mean age of the patients was 62 ± 15.1 years. The minimal clinically important difference values for the ASES, UCLA, and VAS scores were 9.68, 2.92, and 1.13, respectively. There were significant improvements in the ASES (from 29.3 ± 18.3 preoperatively to 93.7 ± 8.3 postoperatively, P = .001), UCLA (from 14.3 ± 6.2 to 32.8 ± 2.6, P = .001), and VAS (from 7.37 ± 1.8 to 0.63 ± 1.02, P = .001) clinical outcome scores. However, patients with either Patte stage 3 retraction (P = .033 for ASES score and P = .020 for UCLA score) or U-shaped tears (P = .047 for ASES score and P = .050 for UCLA score) had significantly lower clinical outcome scores than patients with less severe retraction or differently shaped tears.

Conclusions

The arthroscopic margin convergence technique without the use of suture anchors may be a suitable option in patients with partial- or full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不使用缝合锚的关节镜边缘收敛修复术改善了全厚和部分厚肩袖撕裂的临床疗效
目的 评估不使用缝合锚的关节镜边缘融合技术修复不同类型肩袖撕裂的临床结果评分,并确定撕裂的类型或程度是否会影响术后的临床结果评分。方法 回顾性分析2013年至2018年接受不使用缝合锚的关节镜边缘融合修复术治疗肩袖撕裂的患者。纳入的患者均在关节镜下确定为部分或全厚肩袖撕裂,随访时间至少为 20 个月。结果采用美国肩肘外科医生(ASES)肩关节评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)肩关节评分和视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分进行评估。采用双尾分布配对 t 检验来确定术前评分与最终随访评分之间的统计学意义(P <.05)。相关性测试和线性回归分析用于确定各种临床变量与结果之间的相关性。结果 共有 38 名患者被纳入分析:12 名患者为部分厚度撕裂,26 名患者为全厚度撕裂。术后平均随访时间为 33.9 个月(22.2-94.5 个月),最短随访时间为 22 个月。患者的平均年龄为 62 ± 15.1 岁。ASES、UCLA 和 VAS 评分的最小临床重要差异值分别为 9.68、2.92 和 1.13。ASES(从术前的 29.3 ± 18.3 到术后的 93.7 ± 8.3,P = .001)、UCLA(从 14.3 ± 6.2 到 32.8 ± 2.6,P = .001)和 VAS(从 7.37 ± 1.8 到 0.63 ± 1.02,P = .001)临床结果评分均有明显改善。然而,Patte 3期回缩(ASES评分P = .033,UCLA评分P = .020)或U形撕裂(ASES评分P = .047,UCLA评分P = .050)患者的临床结果评分明显低于回缩程度较轻或撕裂形状不同的患者。结论不使用缝合锚的关节镜边缘收敛技术可能是肩袖部分或全厚撕裂患者的合适选择。
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
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Continuous Meniscal Repair Technique Allows for Shorter Operative Time and Learning Curve Compared With Traditional Vertical Mattress Technique in Controlled Arthroscopic Training in Porcine Model Concomitant Popliteomeniscal Fascicles Tears Are Found in 21% of Professional Soccer Players With Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries Mini-Open Technique for Gluteus Medius Tendon Repairs Is Associated With Low Complication Rates and Sustained Improvement in Patient Reported Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-Up The Top-20 Studies About Anterior Shoulder Instability From an Altmetric Analysis Had Higher Levels of Evidence Than Those From a Traditional Bibliometric Analysis Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Augmented With a Reinforced Bioinductive Implant Is Biomechanically Similar to the Native Medial Patellofemoral Ligament at Time Zero in a Cadaveric Model
×
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