RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although various surgical techniques have been used to treat irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs), debate remains regarding which treatment is most effective. The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes of partial rotator cuff repair versus repair with augmentation of the tenotomized long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). METHODS: This study included 76 patients with large to massive RCTs. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with LHBT augmentation was performed in 39 patients (group I), while partial repair was performed in 37 patients (group II). Clinical and functional outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale for pain and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and Korean Shoulder Score. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 29.6 ± 7.8 months (range, 24-51 months). Significant improvements in pain and clinical scores were observed in both groups at the last follow-up. However, there were no significant differences in pain, clinical scores, or range of motion between the 2 groups at any time point. Retears were observed in 16 patients in group I (41.0%) and 14 in group II (37.8%, P = .78). Augmented LHBT pathology was observed in 10 patients (25.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Both partial repair and repair with LHBT augmentation were effective in improving clinical and radiologic outcomes. No significant differences in clinical outcomes or repaired cuff integrity were observed between the groups. The investment of operation time and effort in augmenting the LHBT in the treatment of irreparable RCTs is not recommended.
Asunto(s)
Artroscopía , Lesiones del Manguito de los Rotadores/cirugía , Tenotomía , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Músculo Esquelético/cirugía , Dimensión del Dolor , Rango del Movimiento Articular , Articulación del Hombro/cirugía , Tendones/cirugía , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate causes of unstable total knee arthroplasty and results of revision surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 24 knees that underwent a revision arthroplasty for unstable total knee arthroplasty. The average follow-up period was 33.8 months. We classified the instability and analyzed the treatment results according to its cause. Stress radiographs, postoperative component position, and joint level were measured. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score and range of motion. RESULTS: Causes of instability included coronal instability with posteromedial polyethylene wear and lateral laxity in 13 knees, coronal instability with posteromedial polyethylene wear in 6 knees and coronal and sagittal instability in 3 knees including post breakage in 1 knee, global instability in 1 knee and flexion instability in 1 knee. Mean preoperative/postoperative varus and valgus angles were 5.8°/3.2° (p = 0.713) and 22.5°/5.6° (p = 0.032). Mean postoperative α, ß, γ, δ angle were 5.34°, 89.65°, 2.74°, 6.77°. Mean changes of joint levels were from 14.1 mm to 13.6 mm from fibular head (p = 0.82). The mean HSS score improved from 53.4 to 89.2 (p = 0.04). The average range of motion was changed from 123° to 122° (p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Revision total knee arthroplasty with or without a more constrained prosthesis will be a definite solution for an unstable total knee arthroplasty. The solution according to cause is very important and seems to be helpful to avoid unnecessary over-constrained implant selection in revision surgery for total knee instability.