Jae Soo Kim, Su Cheol Kim, Jong Hun Park, Hyun Gon Kim, Hyoung Seok Jung, Sang Min Lee, Jae Chul Yoo
{"title":"关节镜下肩袖修复术后的中期功能结局:倾向评分匹配的比较研究","authors":"Jae Soo Kim, Su Cheol Kim, Jong Hun Park, Hyun Gon Kim, Hyoung Seok Jung, Sang Min Lee, Jae Chul Yoo","doi":"10.1177/03635465241305742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Studies are still limited on the isolated effect of retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) on functional outcomes after the midterm period.Purpose:To assess the effect of retear at midterm follow-up after ARCR and to identify factors associated with the need for revision surgery.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent ARCR between 2014 and 2018, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. The structural integrity was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. After propensity score matching, 65 patients for the retear group and 65 for the healed group were included. Functional outcomes, including visual analog scale for pain and function (PVAS and FVAS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, were compared between the groups at 1 year and final follow-up. Multivariate analysis was conducted on the retear group to identify factors associated with the final ASES score.Results:The mean ± SD follow-up period was 6.9 ± 1.4 years. All outcomes at the final follow-up improved as compared with the preoperative status, regardless of retear (all P < .001). In the retear group, PVAS at the final follow-up showed deterioration when compared with postoperative 1 year ( P = .044). While there were no significant differences in all outcomes at 1 year postoperatively between the groups (all P > .05), the retear group demonstrated significantly worse outcomes than the healed group in scores on the PVAS (2.5 ± 1.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.5; P = .011), FVAS (7.3 ± 1.4 vs 7.8 ± 1.3; P = .020), and ASES (73.2 ± 12.7 vs 79.9 ± 15.4; P = .008) at the final follow-up. The revision rate in the retear group was 12.8%, and multivariate analysis showed that larger anteroposterior retear size ( P = .017) and retear of the subscapularis ( P = .047) were negatively associated with the final ASES score.Conclusion:Functional outcomes after ARCR improved during midterm follow-up, regardless of retear. While the effect of retear itself on functional outcomes was minimal in the short term, it became more pronounced after the midterm period. A retear involving the subscapularis or with a larger anteroposterior size was associated with a poorer functional outcome.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Midterm Functional Outcomes After Retear of an Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Propensity Score–Matched Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Jae Soo Kim, Su Cheol Kim, Jong Hun Park, Hyun Gon Kim, Hyoung Seok Jung, Sang Min Lee, Jae Chul Yoo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465241305742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Studies are still limited on the isolated effect of retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) on functional outcomes after the midterm period.Purpose:To assess the effect of retear at midterm follow-up after ARCR and to identify factors associated with the need for revision surgery.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent ARCR between 2014 and 2018, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. The structural integrity was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. After propensity score matching, 65 patients for the retear group and 65 for the healed group were included. Functional outcomes, including visual analog scale for pain and function (PVAS and FVAS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, were compared between the groups at 1 year and final follow-up. Multivariate analysis was conducted on the retear group to identify factors associated with the final ASES score.Results:The mean ± SD follow-up period was 6.9 ± 1.4 years. All outcomes at the final follow-up improved as compared with the preoperative status, regardless of retear (all P < .001). In the retear group, PVAS at the final follow-up showed deterioration when compared with postoperative 1 year ( P = .044). While there were no significant differences in all outcomes at 1 year postoperatively between the groups (all P > .05), the retear group demonstrated significantly worse outcomes than the healed group in scores on the PVAS (2.5 ± 1.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.5; P = .011), FVAS (7.3 ± 1.4 vs 7.8 ± 1.3; P = .020), and ASES (73.2 ± 12.7 vs 79.9 ± 15.4; P = .008) at the final follow-up. The revision rate in the retear group was 12.8%, and multivariate analysis showed that larger anteroposterior retear size ( P = .017) and retear of the subscapularis ( P = .047) were negatively associated with the final ASES score.Conclusion:Functional outcomes after ARCR improved during midterm follow-up, regardless of retear. While the effect of retear itself on functional outcomes was minimal in the short term, it became more pronounced after the midterm period. A retear involving the subscapularis or with a larger anteroposterior size was associated with a poorer functional outcome.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241305742\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241305742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:关于关节镜下肩袖修复(ARCR)后再撕裂对中期后功能结局的孤立影响的研究仍然有限。目的:评估翻修手术在ARCR术后中期随访中的效果,并确定需要翻修手术的相关因素。研究设计:队列研究;证据水平,3。方法:回顾性分析2014 - 2018年间接受ARCR的患者,随访时间至少为5年。采用磁共振成像评估结构完整性。倾向评分匹配后,包括65例复发组和65例愈合组。功能结果,包括疼痛和功能视觉模拟量表(PVAS和FVAS)和美国肩肘外科医生(ASES)评分,在1年和最后随访时进行比较。对retear组进行多变量分析,以确定与最终as评分相关的因素。结果:平均±SD随访时间为6.9±1.4年。与术前相比,最终随访的所有结果均有所改善,无论是否复发(所有P <;措施)。与术后1年相比,治疗组最后一次随访时PVAS出现恶化(P = 0.044)。而两组术后1年的所有结果均无显著差异(P >;.05),愈合组在PVAS评分上明显差于愈合组(2.5±1.5 vs 1.9±1.5;P = 0.011), FVAS(7.3±1.4 vs 7.8±1.3;P = 0.020),而ASES(73.2±12.7 vs 79.9±15.4;P = 0.008)。复习组复习率为12.8%,多因素分析显示,较大的正侧复习大小(P = 0.017)和肩胛下肌复习大小(P = 0.047)与最终的as评分呈负相关。结论:在中期随访中,无论复发与否,ARCR术后的功能结局均有所改善。虽然retear本身在短期内对功能结果的影响很小,但在中期后它变得更加明显。累及肩胛下肌或前后肌较大的撕裂与较差的功能预后相关。
Midterm Functional Outcomes After Retear of an Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Propensity Score–Matched Comparative Study
Background:Studies are still limited on the isolated effect of retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) on functional outcomes after the midterm period.Purpose:To assess the effect of retear at midterm follow-up after ARCR and to identify factors associated with the need for revision surgery.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent ARCR between 2014 and 2018, with a minimum 5-year follow-up. The structural integrity was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging. After propensity score matching, 65 patients for the retear group and 65 for the healed group were included. Functional outcomes, including visual analog scale for pain and function (PVAS and FVAS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, were compared between the groups at 1 year and final follow-up. Multivariate analysis was conducted on the retear group to identify factors associated with the final ASES score.Results:The mean ± SD follow-up period was 6.9 ± 1.4 years. All outcomes at the final follow-up improved as compared with the preoperative status, regardless of retear (all P < .001). In the retear group, PVAS at the final follow-up showed deterioration when compared with postoperative 1 year ( P = .044). While there were no significant differences in all outcomes at 1 year postoperatively between the groups (all P > .05), the retear group demonstrated significantly worse outcomes than the healed group in scores on the PVAS (2.5 ± 1.5 vs 1.9 ± 1.5; P = .011), FVAS (7.3 ± 1.4 vs 7.8 ± 1.3; P = .020), and ASES (73.2 ± 12.7 vs 79.9 ± 15.4; P = .008) at the final follow-up. The revision rate in the retear group was 12.8%, and multivariate analysis showed that larger anteroposterior retear size ( P = .017) and retear of the subscapularis ( P = .047) were negatively associated with the final ASES score.Conclusion:Functional outcomes after ARCR improved during midterm follow-up, regardless of retear. While the effect of retear itself on functional outcomes was minimal in the short term, it became more pronounced after the midterm period. A retear involving the subscapularis or with a larger anteroposterior size was associated with a poorer functional outcome.