Hombro/Shoulder/Schulter: En la dehiscencia del manguito rotador, el tamaño sí importa

Factors Predicting Rotator Cuff Retears: An Analysis of 1000 Consecutive Rotator Cuff Repairs.

Le BT, Wu XL, Lam PH, Murrell GA

Am J Sports Med 2014 May; 42(5):1134-1142.

BACKGROUND

The rate of retears after rotator cuff repair varies from 11% to 94%. A retear is associated with poorer subjective and objective clinical outcomes than intact repair.

PURPOSE

This study was designed to determine which preoperative and/or intraoperative factors held the greatest association with retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This study retrospectively evaluated 1000 consecutive patients who had undergone a primary rotator cuff repair by a single surgeon using an arthroscopic inverted-mattress knotless technique and who had undergone an ultrasound evaluation 6 months after surgery to assess repair integrity. Exclusion criteria included previous rotator cuff repair on the same shoulder, incomplete repair, and repair using a synthetic polytetrafluoroethylene patch. All patients had completed the modified L'Insalata Questionnaire and underwent a clinical examination before surgery. Measurements of tear size, tear thickness, associated shoulder injury, tissue quality, and tendon mobility were recorded intraoperatively.

RESULTS

The overall retear rate at 6 months after surgery was 17%. Retears occurred in 27% of full-thickness tears and 5% of partial-thickness tears (P < .0001). The best independent predictors of retears were anteroposterior tear length (correlation coefficient r = 0.41, P < .0001), tear size area (r = 0.40, P < .0001), mediolateral tear length (r = 0.34, P < .0001), tear thickness (r = 0.29, P < .0001), age at surgery (r = 0.27, P < .0001), and operative time (r = 0.18, P < .0001). These factors produced a predictive model for retears: logit P = (0.039 × age at surgery in years) + (0.027 × tear thickness in %) + (1 × anteroposterior tear length in cm) + (0.76 × mediolateral tear length in cm) - (0.17 × tear size area in cm(2)) + (0.018 × operative time in minutes) -9.7. Logit P can be transformed into P, which is the chance of retears at 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

A rotator cuff retear is a multifactorial process with no single preoperative or intraoperative factor being overwhelmingly predictive of it. Nevertheless, rotator cuff tear size (tear dimensions, tear size area, and tear thickness) showed stronger associations with retears at 6 months after surgery than did measures of tissue quality and concomitant shoulder injuries.

Hombro/Shoulder/Schulter: no parece mejor añadir L-PRP al reparar el manguito rotador

Does autologous leukocyte-platelet-rich plasma improve tendon healing in arthroscopic repair of large or massive rotator cuff tears?

Charousset C, Zaoui A, Bellaïche L, Piterman M

Arthroscopy 2014 Apr; 30(4):428-35.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the use of leukocyte-platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP) in patients with large or massive rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

A comparative cohort of patients with large or massive rotator cuff tears undergoing arthroscopic repair was studied. Two consecutive groups of patients were included: rotator cuff repairs with L-PRP injection (group 1, n = 35) and rotator cuff repairs without L-PRP injection (group 2, n = 35). A double-row cross-suture cuff repair was performed by a single surgeon with the same rehabilitation protocol. Patients were clinically evaluated with the Constant score; Simple Shoulder Test score; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score; and strength measurements by use of a handheld dynamometer. Rotator cuff healing was evaluated by postoperative MRI using the Sugaya classification (type 1 to type 5).

RESULTS

We prospectively evaluated the 2 groups at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The results did not show differences in cuff healing between the 2 groups (P = .16). The size of recurrent tears (type 4 v type 5), however, was significantly smaller in group 1 (P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the recurrent tear rate (types 4 and 5) between the 2 groups (P = .65). There was no significant difference between group 1 and group 2 in terms of University of California, Los Angeles score (29.1 and 30.3, respectively; P = .90); Simple Shoulder Test score (9.9 and 10.2, respectively; P = .94); Constant score (77.3 and 78.1, respectively; P = .82); and strength (7.5 and 7.0, respectively; P = .51).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study the use of autologous L-PRP did not improve the quality of tendon healing in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of large or massive rotator cuff tears based on postoperative MRI evaluation. The only significant advantage was that the L-PRP patients had smaller iterative tears. However, the functional outcome was similar in the 2 groups of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study