Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Using Fascia Lata Autograft Versus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients 65 Years and Older With Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (ASCR) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have both shown favorable outcomes in patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears (IRCTs). Purpose: To (1) compare the clinical outcomes of ASCR versus RSA in patients aged ≥65 years with IRCTs and (2) compare serial changes in clinical outcomes between treatment groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study included patients with IRCTs without glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent either ASCR or RSA between March 2013 and December 2020 and had at least 2 years of follow-up data. We assessed active range of motion, a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score at the preoperative, short-term (postoperative 6-12 months), and final follow-up times. Results: In total, 64 patients (ASCR, 31 patients; RSA, 33 patients) were included. The mean age of patients was 71.3 ± 4.4 and 72.9 ± 4.1 years, and the mean final follow-up duration was 42 ± 21.8 and 37.7 ± 21.7 months in the ASCR and RSA groups, respectively. At the short-term follow-up, RSA achieved significant improvements in all clinical outcomes, except for internal rotation (IR), while ASCR only showed significant improvements in VAS pain, ASES, and SANE scores. Compared with the preoperative period, both ASCR and RSA achieved significant improvements in all clinical outcomes, except for IR in the RSA group at the final follow-up. The ASCR group achieved better IR and ASES scores at the final follow-up, while the time taken to recover from pseudoparalysis was shorter after RSA. The ASCR group showed a 67.8% graft healing rate at the 1-year follow-up, while the RSA group showed 12.1% of scapular notching at the final follow-up. No other postoperative complications were observed in either group. Conclusion: ASCR and RSA achieved favorable clinical outcomes in the study cohort. At the short-term follow-up, RSA showed significant improvements in all clinical outcomes, except for IR, while ASCR only showed significant improvements in VAS pain, ASES, and SANE scores. At the final follow-up, however, ASCR had better IR and ASES scores compared with RSA.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Primary Rotator Cuff Repair in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (aSCR) has emerged as a treatment option for managing massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) given the unpredictable results after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). Yet, few comparative studies of aSCR and aRCR have been conducted. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between aRCR and aSCR in patients with MRCT. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 163 cases of MRCT from 2010 to 2020 with follow-up ≥2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 102 had aRCR and 61 had aSCR using fascia lata autograft. Propensity score matching was used to select controls matched for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant score, pain visual analog scale (pVAS) score, range of motion (ROM), tear size, global fatty degeneration index, and acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Last, 33 cases in each group were selected after propensity score matching. Radiological assessment was conducted using serial postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Pre- and postoperative findings-including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pVAS, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant scores and ROM-were assessed to compare clinical outcomes. For radiological outcomes, global fatty degeneration index, AHD, and healing rate were evaluated. Healing failure was defined as Sugaya classification IV or V in the aRCR group, as compared with a full-thickness tear of the graft in the aSCR group, which corresponded to Sugaya classification IV or V. RESULTS: Postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved at the final follow-up in both groups. In the aSCR group, postoperative forward flexion, pVAS, and AHD were significantly improved as compared with the aRCR group (mean, 161° vs 148° [P = .02]; 1.03 vs 1.64 [P = .047]; 7.00 vs 5.23 mm [P < .001], respectively). The healing rate was 20 of 33 (60.6%) for aRCR and 29 of 33 (87.9%) for aSCR (P = .022). CONCLUSION: aSCR and aRCR are effective and reliable treatment options for MRCT. However, when compared with aRCR, aSCR showed improved clinical outcomes, including pVAS score, postoperative ROM, and favorable radiological findings, including AHD and a higher healing rate.

Secondary synovial chondromatosis of the subacromial subdeltoid bursa with coexisting glenohumeral osteoarthritis: Case report.

RATIONALE: Synovial chondromatosis of the shoulder joint is uncommon; this condition usually affects the knee joint and the hip joint. Lesions of multiple chondral nodules form in the synovium and are usually found within the joint capsule. Treatment of synovial chondromatosis consists of loose body removal and synovectomy. In synovial chondromatosis of the shoulder, arthroscopic loose body removal and synovectomy have been reported with good outcomes. Arthroplasty can be a treatment option when osteoarthritis co-occurs at the affected joint. Since incidence of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis is low compared to osteoarthritis of the knee or hip joints, reports of shoulder synovial chondromatosis treated with arthroplasty are scarce. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 79-year-old woman presented with right shoulder pain with loss of motion for several years without a history of trauma. DIAGNOSES: Degenerative changes in the humeral head and glenoid were noted and multiple loose bodies were found in the subdeltoid bursa, and the subacromial bursa. The pathology of loose bodies showed degenerated cartilage tissue and some bony components. Characteristic concentric rings of calcification were observed, indicative of secondary synovial chondromatosis. The diagnosis was secondary synovial chondromatosis of the subacromial subdeltoid bursa with coexisting glenohumeral osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: The patient was treated with loose body removal, extensive synovectomy, bursectomy and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. OUTCOMES: Visual analog scale for shoulder pain, range of motion of shoulder joint had improved demonstrating a good short-term outcome and there was no radiographic evidence of disease recurrence. LESSONS: In synovial chondromatosis of the shoulder, loose bodies may form in the bursa. In combination with degenerative osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint, arthroplasty is a viable option.

Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version: A randomized multicenter study.

To prove the equivalence of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) in the printed (PFAOS) vs the electronic (EFAOS) form in a multicenter randomized study.Overall, 227 patients with ages ranging from 20 to 79 years from 16 dedicated foot and ankle centers were included. Patients were randomized into either a 'paper first' group (P-F group, n = 113) or an 'electronic device (tablet computer) first' group (E-F group, n = 114). The first evaluation either by paper (P-F group) or tablet (E-F group) was followed by a second evaluation the following day. The difference between the PFAOS and EFAOS results in each group was calculated and analyzed. To evaluate the benefit of each methodology, the time consumed per evaluation was compared and patients were asked which methodology they preferred and which was the easiest to use.There were no significant differences in age or sex between the groups. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value of 0.934 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.912-0.950, P < .001) was confirmed in PFAOS and EFAOS, showing a significant correlation between the 2 methodologies. EFAOS was completed in a shorter amount of time than PFAOS. The majority of patients agreed that EFAOS was easier to complete than PFAOS.The paper or electronic forms of the Korean adaptation of FAOS were considered equivalent. The shorter time of completion and the preference for the electronic version over paper by patients deems the electronic FAOS a promising option to consider in future.