背阔肌肌腱转移术与开放性完全修复术治疗有症状的大块肩袖撕裂。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic Science Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jos.2024.09.001
Emre Kaya, Mehmet Kapıcıoglu, Koray Sahin, Tolga Kececi, Kerem Bilsel
{"title":"背阔肌肌腱转移术与开放性完全修复术治疗有症状的大块肩袖撕裂。","authors":"Emre Kaya, Mehmet Kapıcıoglu, Koray Sahin, Tolga Kececi, Kerem Bilsel","doi":"10.1016/j.jos.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear (MRCT) treatment is challenging, and there is no clear treatment strategy. In our study, we aimed to compare latissimus dorsi tendon transfer (LDTT) and open complete repair (OCR) surgical techniques for the treatment of MRCT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases of symptomatic MRCT treated surgically with LDTT and OCR techniques between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. The study was conducted in two centers: 1) one surgeon performed LDTT in first center and 2) the other surgeon performed OCR in second center. This study included 18 cases of LDTT and 15 cases of OCR. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively in terms of demographic, radiological and functional scores. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley (CM) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) were used for functional evaluation. Symptom duration was defined as less than 6 months after onset, longer than 6 months and less than one year (<1Y)after onset, and longer than one year (>1Y) after onset.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The functional scores and range of motion improved significantly in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the symptom duration subgroups in the LDTT group. However, there was a significant difference in functional scores between <1Y and >1Y (P < 0.001) in the OCR group. Re-tear was seen in 5 (33.3 %) cases in the OCR group, and failure was seen in 3 (16.6 %) cases in the LDDT group. The failure rate was significantly higher in the OCR group than in the LDTT group (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LDTT technique is good option in the treatment of MRCT. However, in acute-subacute MRCT cases, open complete repair is a simpler, successful and safe technique. In chronic cases of >1Y, re-tear rates with OCR were high, and functional outcomes were low. We recommend that LDTT treatment for chronic cases (>1Y).</p>","PeriodicalId":16939,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer versus open complete repair for symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear.\",\"authors\":\"Emre Kaya, Mehmet Kapıcıoglu, Koray Sahin, Tolga Kececi, Kerem Bilsel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jos.2024.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear (MRCT) treatment is challenging, and there is no clear treatment strategy. In our study, we aimed to compare latissimus dorsi tendon transfer (LDTT) and open complete repair (OCR) surgical techniques for the treatment of MRCT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cases of symptomatic MRCT treated surgically with LDTT and OCR techniques between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. The study was conducted in two centers: 1) one surgeon performed LDTT in first center and 2) the other surgeon performed OCR in second center. This study included 18 cases of LDTT and 15 cases of OCR. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively in terms of demographic, radiological and functional scores. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley (CM) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) were used for functional evaluation. Symptom duration was defined as less than 6 months after onset, longer than 6 months and less than one year (<1Y)after onset, and longer than one year (>1Y) after onset.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The functional scores and range of motion improved significantly in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the symptom duration subgroups in the LDTT group. However, there was a significant difference in functional scores between <1Y and >1Y (P < 0.001) in the OCR group. Re-tear was seen in 5 (33.3 %) cases in the OCR group, and failure was seen in 3 (16.6 %) cases in the LDDT group. The failure rate was significantly higher in the OCR group than in the LDTT group (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LDTT technique is good option in the treatment of MRCT. However, in acute-subacute MRCT cases, open complete repair is a simpler, successful and safe technique. In chronic cases of >1Y, re-tear rates with OCR were high, and functional outcomes were low. We recommend that LDTT treatment for chronic cases (>1Y).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2024.09.001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2024.09.001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:无症状的大块肩袖撕裂(MRCT)治疗具有挑战性,目前尚无明确的治疗策略。在我们的研究中,我们旨在比较背阔肌肌腱转移(LDTT)和开放性完全修复(OCR)手术技术治疗 MRCT:研究纳入了 2014 年至 2021 年间采用 LDTT 和 OCR 技术手术治疗的无症状 MRCT 病例。研究在两个中心进行:1)一名外科医生在第一中心进行 LDTT,2)另一名外科医生在第二中心进行 OCR。本研究包括 18 例 LDTT 和 15 例 OCR。术前和术后对患者进行了人口统计学、放射学和功能评分。功能评估采用美国肩肘外科医生(ASES)评分、Constant-Murley(CM)评分和视觉模拟量表(VAS)。症状持续时间定义为发病后不到 6 个月、超过 6 个月和不到一年(1Y):结果:两组患者的功能评分和活动范围均有明显改善。在 LDTT 组中,症状持续时间亚组之间没有发现明显的统计学差异。然而,两组患者在 1 年后的功能评分有明显差异(P 结论:LDTT 技术是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的良好选择:LDTT 技术是治疗 MRCT 的良好选择。然而,在急性-亚急性 MRCT 病例中,开放性完全修复术是一种更简单、成功和安全的技术。在 1 年以上的慢性病例中,开放性完全修复术的再撕裂率较高,功能性结果较低。我们建议对慢性病例(>1Y)进行 LDTT 治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer versus open complete repair for symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear.

Background: Symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear (MRCT) treatment is challenging, and there is no clear treatment strategy. In our study, we aimed to compare latissimus dorsi tendon transfer (LDTT) and open complete repair (OCR) surgical techniques for the treatment of MRCT.

Methods: Cases of symptomatic MRCT treated surgically with LDTT and OCR techniques between 2014 and 2021 were included in the study. The study was conducted in two centers: 1) one surgeon performed LDTT in first center and 2) the other surgeon performed OCR in second center. This study included 18 cases of LDTT and 15 cases of OCR. The patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively in terms of demographic, radiological and functional scores. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley (CM) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) were used for functional evaluation. Symptom duration was defined as less than 6 months after onset, longer than 6 months and less than one year (<1Y)after onset, and longer than one year (>1Y) after onset.

Results: The functional scores and range of motion improved significantly in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the symptom duration subgroups in the LDTT group. However, there was a significant difference in functional scores between <1Y and >1Y (P < 0.001) in the OCR group. Re-tear was seen in 5 (33.3 %) cases in the OCR group, and failure was seen in 3 (16.6 %) cases in the LDDT group. The failure rate was significantly higher in the OCR group than in the LDTT group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: LDTT technique is good option in the treatment of MRCT. However, in acute-subacute MRCT cases, open complete repair is a simpler, successful and safe technique. In chronic cases of >1Y, re-tear rates with OCR were high, and functional outcomes were low. We recommend that LDTT treatment for chronic cases (>1Y).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthopaedic Science
Journal of Orthopaedic Science 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic Science is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. The journal publishes the latest researches and topical debates in all fields of clinical and experimental orthopaedics, including musculoskeletal medicine, sports medicine, locomotive syndrome, trauma, paediatrics, oncology and biomaterials, as well as basic researches.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and associated factors for primary osteoarthritis of the thumb carpometacarpal joint in the general elderly population: A cohort survey randomly sampled from a basic resident registry of a small rural town in Japan. Radiological features of the carpometacarpal joint in hamate body fracture on anteroposterior hand X-ray image. Clinical characteristics and results after conservative treatment or interfascicular neurolysis of 100 limbs with spontaneous anterior interosseous nerve palsy: A prospective Japanese multicenter study. Minimal clinically important difference in the Japanese Orthopedic Association Score and shoulder 36 after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in a Japanese population: A retrospective cohort study. What is the appropriate revascularisation approach in traumatic popliteal artery injury?
×
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