RESUMEN
Objective To compare the clinical effect of arthroscopic single-row and suture-bridge double-row fixation of full-thickness rotator cuff tear.Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 40 patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tear treated by single-row and suture-bridge double-row fixation between May 2010 and May 2012.Single-row rotator cuff repair was performed in 18 patients and doublerow repair in 22 patients.The two techniques were compared in aspects of complications,recovery time to daily life,time to achieve satisfaction score,re-tear rate,pre-and post-operative VAS,University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Scores (UCLA),and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES).Results Mean period of follow-up was 15.6 months (range,13-24 months).Both treatment were effective in improving VAS,UCLA,and ASES,but the differences were insignificant (P ＞ 0.05).Recovery time to daily life,time to achieve satisfaction score,and large rotator cuff re-tear rate were 69.2 ± 16.6)d,(196.4 ±24.6)d,and 4/5 respectively in single-row fixation,with significant differences from (54.1 ± 13.3)d,(165.0 ±20.6)d,and 1/8 in suture-bridge double-row fixation (P ＜0.05).Conclusion Both treatments are effective for rotator cuff reconstruction,but suture-bridge double-row fixation provides earlier recovery to daily life,shorter time to achieve satisfaction score,and lower incidence of large rotator cuff retear.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical results of small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process and traditional open surgical incision in posterior single level lumbar interbody fusion,and assess the application value of the small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process in posterior single level lumbar interbody fusion.MethodsFrom December 2006 to June 2008,70 patients with lower lumbar vertebral diseases underwent single segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion.Patients were randomly divided into small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process group(Hereinafter referred to as small incision group) of 36 cases and 34 cases of conventional open group.Small incision group included 20 males and 16 females with an average age of 52.0 years.Traditional open group included 16 males and 18 females with an average age of 53.2 years.Two groups of operative time,blood loss,postoperative drainage,X-ray projection operation frequency,hospital stay,complication rate,creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level,multifidus cross-sectional area,postoperative low back pain visual analogue scale(VAS),Oswestry disability index(ODI),interbody fusion rate were compared,respectively.ResultsAll of 70 cases were followed up for 12-24 months (average,16).There were no statistically differences in the operation time,the number of X-ray projection,complication rate,and fusion rate between the two groups (P＞0.05),but there were significant differences in blood loss,postoperative drainage,the first day and the third day of postoperative the level of CPK,postoperative multifidus muscle cross-sectional area,postoperative low back pain VAS,hospital stay,and postoperative ODI between the two groups(P＜0.05).ConclusionSmall surgical incision of bilateral spinous process and traditional open surgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion were satisfied with the efficacy,but small surgical incision of bilateral spinous process with less trauma,shorter hospital stay,and rapid postoperative recovery.