Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Five Year Follow up of Retrospective Cohort Comparing Structural and Functional Outcome of Arthroscopic Single-row ersus Double-row Suture Bridge Repair of Large Posterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tear in Patients Less than or Equal to 70 Years.
Pandey, Vivek; C J, Joseph; Mathai, Naveen J; Madi, Sandesh; Karegowda, Lakshmikanth H; Willems, Jaap.
Afiliación
  • Pandey V; Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.
  • C J J; Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.
  • Mathai NJ; Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.
  • Madi S; Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.
  • Karegowda LH; Department of Orthopedics, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.
  • Willems J; Shoulder unit, Lairesse Kliniek, Valeriusplein, BG Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arch Bone Jt Surg ; 9(4): 391-398, 2021 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34423086
BACKGROUND: High re-tear rates after repairing large-sized posterosuperior rotator cuff tears remain a significant concern which may affect the clinical outcome. The most optimal type of repair (single versus double-row suture bridge) suited for large size tear remains debatable. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study with a minimum of five years follow up, the structural and functional outcome of 103 patients with large size cuff tear repaired with single row (SR) or double row suture bridge (DRSB) were evaluated. The structural outcome was assessed with ultrasonography whereas functional outcome was evaluated with Constant Murley (CM) and American shoulder elbow score (ASES). RESULTS: There were 55 patients in the SR group and 48 patients in the DRSB group with a mean follow-up of 74.2 months (range, 60-96 months). While comparing the structural integrity in two groups, we found significantly lower re-tear rates in the DRSB group as compared to the SR group (10.4% vs. 32.7%; P=0.006). Also, there were more focal defects in the SR group (25.4%) than the DRSB group (8.3%). Overall, there was no significant difference in CM and ASES scores when the SR group was compared to DRSB. However, subgroup analysis between those with intact and retorn tendon revealed significant difference (P=0.0001) in the clinical scores. CONCLUSION: At a minimum of five years follow-up, the DRSB repair of large posterosuperior cuff tear resulted in superior structural healing over SR repair. Nevertheless, overall there was no significant functional difference between both the techniques. However, the functional outcome of the healed tendon subgroup was superior to retear tendon subgroup.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Arch Bone Jt Surg Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: India Pais de publicación: Irán
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Arch Bone Jt Surg Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: India Pais de publicación: Irán