Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 12/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Original Paper

Clinical and biomechanical performance of patients with failed rotator cuff repair

Authors: Przemyslaw Lubiatowski, Piotr Kaczmarek, Marcin Dzianach, Piotr Ogrodowicz, Maciej Bręborowicz, Jan Długosz, Ewa Lisiewicz, Leszek Romanowski

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 12/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was clinical and advanced biomechanical evaluation of shoulder function with respect to rotator cuff (RC) integrity following repair.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 111 cases with solid single row rotator cuff repair and a minimal one-year follow-up. The RC repair was performed as an open procedure in 42 patients, arthroscopically assisted in 34 and fully arthroscopic in 48 cases. Evaluation protocol included ultrasound evaluation of the RC integrity, clinical evaluation using shoulder scores and advanced biomechanical evaluation (isometric and the isokinetic strength testing).

Results

Ultrasound evaluation revealed complete retear in 16 %, partial retear in 10 % and intact repair in 74 % of the cases.
Isometric testing of flexion and abduction had shown that shoulders with complete retear were weaker by 45 % compared to those with full tendon healing.
Isokinetic testing revealed 29–43 % deficits in peak external rotation torque comparing complete retear vs. normal healing. Patients’ ability to generate shoulder power and withstand a load proved to be lower in circumstances of a complete lack of healing (40–43 % and 34–55 %, respectively). Partial retears did not have a negative impact on the biomechanical properties of shoulders. Surprisingly, there were no significant differences in the shoulder scores related to the quality of healing. In terms of patient satisfaction the results were good and the patients declared themselves better in all cases, no matter what quality of healing had been recorded ultimately.

Conclusions

According to the results of this research rotator cuff integrity after open or arthroscopic repair does not seem to affect clinical scores. Recurrent tears may result in lower muscle performance in terms of active motion, strength and endurance. Advanced shoulder testing may be essential in assessing the patients’ ability to return to sports or heavy labour.
Literature
1.
Dines JS, Bedi A, El Attrache NS, Dines DM (2010) Single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: techniques and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:83–93PubMed
2.
Spang JT, Buchmann S, Brucker PU et al (2009) A biomechanical comparison of 2 transosseous-equivalent double-row rotator cuff repair techniques using bioabsorbable anchors: cyclic loading and failure behavior. Arthroscopy 25:872–879PubMedCrossRef
3.
Pauly S, Kieser B, Schill A, Gerhardt C, Scheibel M (2010) Biomechanical comparison of 4 double-row suture-bridging rotator cuff repair techniques using different medial-row configurations. Arthroscopy 26:1281–1288PubMedCrossRef
4.
Derwin KA, Badylak SF, Steinmann SP, Iannotti JP (2010) Extracellular matrix scaffold devices for rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:467–476PubMedCrossRef
5.
Millar NL, Wu X, Tantau R, Silverstone E, Murrell GA (2009) Open versus two forms of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:966–978PubMedCrossRef
6.
Bishop J, Klepps S, Lo IK, Bird J, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL (2006) Cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:290–299PubMedCrossRef
7.
Verma NN, Dunn W, Adler RS et al (2006) All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a retrospective review with minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 22:587–594PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ellenbecker TS, Davies GJ (2000) The application of isokinetics in testing and rehabilitation of the shoulder complex. J Athl Train 35:338–350PubMed
9.
Lui P, Zhang P, Chan K, Qin L (2010) Biology and augmentation of tendon-bone insertion repair. J Orthop Surg Res 5:59PubMedCrossRef
10.
Carpenter JE, Thomopoulos S, Flanagan CL, DeBano CM, Soslowsky LJ (1998) Rotator cuff defect healing: a biomechanical and histologic analysis in an animal model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:599–605PubMedCrossRef
11.
Scarlat M, Florescu A (2005) Shoulder function and scores in 180 asymptomatic individuals aged over 75 years. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 91(6):502–507PubMedCrossRef
12.
Itoi E, Minagawa H, Sato T, Sato K, Tabata S (1997) Isokinetic strength after tears of the supraspinatus tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:77–82PubMedCrossRef
13.
Norlin R, Adolfsson L (2008) Small full-thickness tears do well ten to thirteen years after arthroscopic subacromial decompression. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:12–16CrossRef
14.
Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N (2003) The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 7:1–166
15.
de Jesus JO, Parker L, Frangos AJ, Nazarian LN (2009) Accuracy of MRI, MR arthrography, and ultrasound in the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 192:1701–1707CrossRef
16.
Yoo JC, Ahn JH, Koh KH, Lim KS (2009) Rotator cuff integrity after arthroscopic repair for large tears with less-than-optimal footprint coverage. Arthroscopy 25:1093–1100PubMedCrossRef
17.
Liem D, Bartl C, Lichtenberg S, Magosch P, Habermeyer P (2007) Clinical outcome and tendon integrity of arthroscopic versus mini-open supraspinatus tendon repair: a magnetic resonance imaging-controlled matched-pair analysis. Arthroscopy 23:514–521PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zumstein MA, Jost B, Hempel J, Hodler J, Gerber C (2008) The clinical and structural long-term results of open repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2423–2431PubMedCrossRef
19.
Demirors H, Circi E, Akgun RC, Tarhan NC, Cetin N, Akpinar S, Tuncay IC (2010) Correlations of isokinetic measurements with tendon healing following open repair of rotator cuff tears. Int Orthop 34(4):531–536PubMedCrossRef
20.
Leggin BG, Neuman RM, Iannotti JP, Williams GR, Thompson EC (1996) Intrarater and interrater reliability of three isometric dynamometers in assessing shoulder strength. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 5:18–24PubMedCrossRef
21.
Fukuda H (2000) Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: a modern view on Codman’s classic. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:163–168PubMedCrossRef
22.
Apreleva M, Ozbaydar M, Fitzgibbons PG, Warner JJ (2002) Rotator cuff tears: the effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area. Arthroscopy 18:519–526PubMedCrossRef
23.
Carbonel I, Martinez AA, Calvo A, Ripalda J, Herrera A (2012) Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study. Int Orthop 36(9):1877–1883PubMedCrossRef
24.
Perser K, Godfrey D, Bisson L (2011) Meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair. Sports Health 3(3):268–274PubMedCrossRef
25.
Duquin TR, Buyea C, Bisson LJ (2010) Which method of rotator cuff repair leads to the highest rate of structural healing? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med 38(4):835–841PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Clinical and biomechanical performance of patients with failed rotator cuff repair
Authors
Przemyslaw Lubiatowski
Piotr Kaczmarek
Marcin Dzianach
Piotr Ogrodowicz
Maciej Bręborowicz
Jan Długosz
Ewa Lisiewicz
Leszek Romanowski
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2024-0

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

International Orthopaedics 12/2013 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Primary lymphoma of bone: outcome and role of surgery

Original Paper

A comparative biomechanical study of proximal femoral nail (InterTAN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fractures

Original Paper

Is it worthwhile to screen the hip in infants born with clubfeet?

Original Paper

Does the surgical approach in one stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty affect blood loss?

Letter to the Editor

Comment on Jugun et al.: The safety and efficacy of high-dose daptomycin combined with rifampicin for the treatment of Gram-positive osteoarticular infections

Review Article

Osteoarthritis: genes, nature–nurture interaction and the role of leptin