Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2024
Concomitant Biceps Tenodesis Does Not Compromise Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Outcomes.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Samuel, Deivert Kyle T, Goodeill Teigen, Firoved Amanda B, Morgan Caleb N, Worcester Katherine S, Kim William, Bonner Kevin F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) with concomitant biceps tenodesis with those who underwent an isolated RCR.
METHODS: Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P = .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P = .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42 ± 0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P = .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P = .001) than the isolated RCR group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case study.
METHODS: Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral shoulder surgery, irreparable rotator cuff tears, rotator cuff arthropathy, calcific tendinitis, adhesive capsulitis requiring a capsular release, or advanced osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Patients were indicated for biceps tenodesis if they had any degree of tendon tearing, moderate-to-severe tenosynovitis, instability, or a significant degenerative SLAP tear. Primary outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analog scale, EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level, and a site-specific questionnaire, which focused on surgical expectations, satisfaction, and complications. Multivariate analysis of variance to analyze descriptive statistics and determine significant differences between the patient groups for subjective and objective outcome measures were performed.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences for pain/visual analog scale (0.34 ± 0.09 vs 0.47 ± 0.09, P = .31), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (96.69 ± 0.87 vs 94.44 ± 0.91, P = .07), and Simple Shoulder Test (11.42 ± 0.17 vs 10.95 ± 0.18, P = .06) between the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis and isolated RCR at a minimum of 2 years' postoperatively. This is despite the RCR with concomitant biceps tenodesis group having significantly larger rotator cuff tears (4.25 ± 0.30 cm2 vs 2.80 ± 0.32 cm2, P = .001) than the isolated RCR group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that concomitant biceps tenodesis does not compromise outcomes when compared with an isolated RCR at 2-year follow-up, despite this group having larger rotator cuff tears.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case study.