Mejía-Salazar CR, Sierra-Pérez M, Ruiz-Suárez M

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 191-195
PDF size: 192.06 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare two surgical techniques to address the painful shoulder syndrome with partial or total supraspinous tendon tear. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of complete supraspinous tendon tear who required surgical repair and subacromial decompression. One group was treated with acromioplasty and tendon plasty using an open approach (G1), and the second one underwent arthroscopy with tendon plasty using a minimally-invasive approach (G2). The surgical approach was not decided at random, but was based on the surgeon’s preference. The major outcome was functional assessment at postoperative month 12 using the UCLA scale. The variables compared were the operative time, anesthesia time, intraoperative bleeding, and immediate complications. Means and standard deviations were analyzed for the quantitative variables, and percentages for the qualitative variables. The U Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the ranges of non-related groups. Results: Thirty-two patients were included in G1, and 13 in G2. No differences were found in age, gender, comorbid conditions, and the time elapsed before surgical treatment. G2 patients were found to have better function according to the UCLA scale (p = 0.032). No differences were reported in the operative time (60 versus 80 minutes, p = 0.12), anesthesia time (120 versus 97 minutes, p = 0.12), total bleeding (50 ml in both groups, p = 0.09), or length of stay (2 versus 1, p = 0.81). No immediate complications were reported. Conclusions: Arthroscopic repair plus a minimally-invasive approach to treat subacromial impingement and supraspinous tendon tear seems to provide better clinical outcomes based on function recovery and patient satisfaction.

REFERENCES

1. Bytomski JR, Black D: Conservative treatment of rotator cuff injuries. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2006; 15(3): 126-31.

2. Irrgang JJ, Lubowitz JH: Measuring arthroscopic outcome. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(6): 718-22.

3. Lindley K, Jones GL: Outcomes of arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010; 39(12): 592-600.

4. Morse K, Davis AD, Afra R, Kaye EK, Schepsis A, Voloshin I: Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(9): 1824-8.

5. Colegate-Stone T, Allom R, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J: An analysis of outcome of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair using subjective and objective scoring tools. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 17(6): 691-4.

6. Liem D, Lengers N, Dedy N, Poetzl W, Steinbeck J, Marquardt B: Arthroscopic debridement of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(7): 743-8.

7. Cabrera-Viltres N, Salles-Betancourt G, Bernal-González M, Álvarez-Placeres L, Marrero-Riverón LO, Espinosa-Tejeda N: Tratamiento de descompresión subacromial en el síndrome de pinzamiento anterior del hombro. Rev Cubana Ortop Traumatol. 2004; 18(1): 4-10.

8. Maman E, Harris C, White L, Tomlinson G, Shashank M, Boynton E: Outcome of nonoperative treatment of symptomatic rotator cuff tears monitored by magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(8): 1898-906.

9. Watson EM, Sonnabend DH: Outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(3): 201-11.

10. Harryman DT 2nd, Hettrich CM, Smith KL, Campbell B, Sidles JA, Matsen FA 3rd: A prospective multipractice investigation of patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears: the importance of comorbidities, practice, and other covariables on self-assessed shoulder function and health status. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A(4): 690-6.

11. Bigliani LU, Morrison DS, April EW: The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Orthop Trans. 1986; 10: 228.

12. Zenteno CB, Martínez LS, Zarur MN, Villalobos GE, Echevarría ZS: Descompresión subacromial de hombro por artroscopía. Resultados a largo plazo con la técnica de Caspari. Acta Ortop Mex. 2002; 16(5): 258-60.

13. Encalada-Diaz I, Cole BJ, Macgillivray JD, Ruiz-Suarez M, Kercher JS, Friel NA, et al: Rotator cuff repair augmentation using a novel polycarbonate polyurethane patch: preliminary results at 12 months’ follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20(5): 788-94.

14. Ellman H: Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; (254): 64-74.

15. Arcuri F, Abalo E, Barclay F: Uso de escores para evaluación de la inestabilidad de hombro. Artroscopia. 2012; 19(1): 67-72.

16. Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K: A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21(9): 1090-8.

17. Marx RG, Koulouvaris P, Chu SK, Levy BA: Indications for surgery in clinical outcome studies of rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(2): 450-6.

18. Kirkley A, Griffin S: Development of disease-specific quality of life measurement tools. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19(10): 1121-8.

19. Wright RW, Baumgarten KM: Shoulder outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010; 18(7): 436-44.

20. Mansat P, Cofield RH, Kersten TE, Rowland CM: Complications of rotator cuff repair. Orthop Clin North Am. 1997; 28(2): 205-13.

21. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K: Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19(10): 1109-20.

22. Harvie P, Pollard TC, Chennagiri RJ, Carr AJ: The use of outcome scores in surgery of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(2): 151-4.

23. Verma NN, Bhatia S, Baker CL 3rd, Cole BJ, Boniquit N, Nicholson GP, et al: Outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients aged 70 years or older. Arthroscopy. 2010; 26(10): 1273-80.

24. Warner JJ, Goitz RJ, Irrgang JJ, Groff YJ: Arthroscopic-assisted rotator cuff repair: patient selection and treatment outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997; 6(5): 463-72.