Friday, February 22, 2019

How do we know if the clinical improvement after "cuff repair" is related to the success of the repair?

Do elderly patients gain as much benefit from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair as their younger peers?

These authors assessed the 29 month Constant score outcomes for 60 patients aged older than 75 years having attempted arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs in comparison to a group of 60 younger patients, matched for sex, tear size, and American Society of Anesthesiology Functional Classification grade were included.

Tear sizes were 25 massive, 20 large, 12 medium, and 3 small.

Postoperatively, all patients were placed into a mild abduction and neutral rotation sling for 6 weeks with therapist-supervised rehabilitation afterwards.

The improvement in the Constant score, pain, patient satisfaction, and complication rates were not different for the two groups.

The authors concluded that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair should be considered as a valuable treatment irrespective of age. The authors did not assess the cuff integrity (retear or nonhealing) rate.

Comment:  As the authors point out, massive tears are reported to have healing failure rates as high as 91% and tendon nonhealing does not reflect functional failure.

So, once again, we're left with the unanswered question "does integrity of the repair matter?" If it doesn't then what is it about the failed repair attempt that leads to functional improvement after failed rotator cuff repairs?

==

We have a new set of shoulder youtubes about the shoulder, check them out at this link.

Be sure to visit "Ream and Run - the state of the art" regarding this radically conservative approach to shoulder arthritis at this link and this link

Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.