Biceps Rerouting for Semirigid Large-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.

Arthroscopy

Shoulder & Elbow Clinic, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Myongji Hospital, Goyang-si, Korea. Electronic address:

Published: September 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study aimed to compare the outcomes of two surgical techniques for large-to-massive rotator cuff tears: arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with biceps rerouting (ARCR + BR) and conventional arthroscopic repair (ARCR) alone.
  • - Data from 111 patients showed that both groups experienced significant improvement in range of motion and functional scores; however, retear rates were notably different, with 18.6% in the ARCR + BR group versus 48.1% in the conventional repair group.
  • - The presence of significant partial tearing of the long head of the biceps tendon preoperatively was a strong predictor of retear, suggesting that specific pre-surgery conditions could influence surgical outcomes

Article Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) with biceps rerouting (BR) and those of conventional repair for semirigid, large-to-massive rotator cuff tear.

Methods: We prospectively collected data of 111 patients who underwent either ARCR + BR (n = 59, group 1) or only ARCR (n = 52, group 2) for semirigid, large-to-massive rotator cuff tear between January 2016 and December 2018. We comparatively analyzed both groups with respect to preoperative factors including concomitant lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT). Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictive variables for occurrence of retear after ARCR + BR.

Results: Mean age of groups 1 and 2 were 62.8 and 63.7 years, respectively (P = .484). Mean follow-up period in groups 1 and 2 were 15.1 and 25.1 months, respectively (P = .102). Mean range of motion and functional scores improved significantly (P < .05) and comparably (P > .05) in both groups. In total, 11 (18.6%) and 25 (48.1%) patients from groups 1 and 2, respectively, showed retear of the repaired rotator cuff at final follow-up (P < .01). Of 45 group 1 patients who showed less than 50% partial tearing of the LHBT preoperatively, 6 (13.3%) experienced retear. Comparatively, of 14 patients with partial tearing involving more than 50% of the LHBT, 5 (35.7%) suffered postoperative retear. If the patients had partial tear involving more than 50% of LHBT preoperatively, the odds ratio (OR) to have retear was 4.222 (P = .037). Wider (OR, 1.445, P = .047) and thinner (OR, 0.166, P = .019) LHBT were the prognostic factors to have retear. Three (5.1%) group 1 patients showed the Popeye deformity at final follow-up.

Conclusions: ARCR + BR for semirigid, large-to-massive rotator cuff tears effectively improved clinical and structural outcomes as also shown in the conventional repairs. However, the retear rate was significantly lower in patients who underwent ARCR + BR than those treated conventionally. Partial tearing involving more than 50% of the LHBT and wide and/or thin tendon morphology were significant risk factors for postoperative occurrence of retear.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative trial.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.04.008DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rotator cuff
24
semirigid large-to-massive
16
large-to-massive rotator
16
partial tearing
12
involving 50%
12
50% lhbt
12
biceps rerouting
8
cuff tears
8
patients underwent
8
underwent arcr +
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!