The American journal of sports medicine · 2009
Outcomes after arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Piasecki Dana P, Verma Nikhil N, Nho Shane J, Bhatia Sanjeev, Boniquit Nicole, Cole Brian J, Nicholson Gregory P, Romeo Anthony A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although a number of reports have documented outcomes after open revision rotator cuff repair, there are few studies reporting results after arthroscopic revision.
HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic repair of failed rotator cuff results in significant improvement in shoulder functional outcome and pain relief.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: Multiple variables including demographic data, the number of prior ipsilateral shoulder surgeries, and tear size were recorded from chart review. An independent examiner then measured shoulder strength, range of motion, and shoulder functional outcome scores including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog pain scale. Paired t tests were performed to compare preoperative and postoperative measures. Additionally, contingency table analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors for failure of repair requiring further surgery and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score less than 50.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (88.5%) were available for follow-up evaluation with a mean age of 54.9 +/- 10.1 years (range, 22.7-82.5 years) and a mean follow-up of 31.1 +/- 11.9 months. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved from 43.8 +/- 5.7 (mean +/- 95% confidence interval) before revision to 68.1 +/- 7.2 at final follow-up (P = .0039). The Simple Shoulder Test improved significantly from 3.56 +/- 0.8 before surgery to 7.5 +/- 1.1 at most recent follow-up (P < .0001). Visual analog pain scale scores improved from 5.17 +/- 0.8 to 2.75 +/- 0.8 (P = .03), and forward elevation increased from 121.0 degrees +/- 12.3 degrees to 136 degrees +/- 11.8 degrees postoperatively (P = .025). Greater than 1 prior shoulder surgery was associated with cases that required additional surgery (P = .031). Female gender (P = .007) and preoperative abduction less than 90 masculine (P = .009) were associated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores less than 50.
CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair may be a reasonable treatment option even after prior open repairs and provides both improved pain relief and shoulder function. Nonetheless, results are not completely optimal. Female patients and those who have undergone more than 1 ipsilateral shoulder surgery are at increased risk for poorer results.
HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic repair of failed rotator cuff results in significant improvement in shoulder functional outcome and pain relief.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: Multiple variables including demographic data, the number of prior ipsilateral shoulder surgeries, and tear size were recorded from chart review. An independent examiner then measured shoulder strength, range of motion, and shoulder functional outcome scores including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog pain scale. Paired t tests were performed to compare preoperative and postoperative measures. Additionally, contingency table analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors for failure of repair requiring further surgery and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score less than 50.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (88.5%) were available for follow-up evaluation with a mean age of 54.9 +/- 10.1 years (range, 22.7-82.5 years) and a mean follow-up of 31.1 +/- 11.9 months. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved from 43.8 +/- 5.7 (mean +/- 95% confidence interval) before revision to 68.1 +/- 7.2 at final follow-up (P = .0039). The Simple Shoulder Test improved significantly from 3.56 +/- 0.8 before surgery to 7.5 +/- 1.1 at most recent follow-up (P < .0001). Visual analog pain scale scores improved from 5.17 +/- 0.8 to 2.75 +/- 0.8 (P = .03), and forward elevation increased from 121.0 degrees +/- 12.3 degrees to 136 degrees +/- 11.8 degrees postoperatively (P = .025). Greater than 1 prior shoulder surgery was associated with cases that required additional surgery (P = .031). Female gender (P = .007) and preoperative abduction less than 90 masculine (P = .009) were associated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores less than 50.
CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair may be a reasonable treatment option even after prior open repairs and provides both improved pain relief and shoulder function. Nonetheless, results are not completely optimal. Female patients and those who have undergone more than 1 ipsilateral shoulder surgery are at increased risk for poorer results.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroscopyAthletic InjuriesConfidence IntervalsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresPain MeasurementPostoperative PeriodPrognosisProspective StudiesPlastic Surgery ProceduresRotator CuffRotator Cuff InjuriesSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesYoung Adult