ABSTRACT
Rotator cuff tear is a common source of pain and disfunction in shoulder, with prevalence increasing with age. Nonsurgical treatment is adequate for many patients; however, for those for whom surgical treatment is indicated, rotator cuff repair provides reliable pain relief and good functional results. However, massive and irreparable tears due to tear size, tendon retraction, muscle atrophy, fatty infiltration are a significant challenge for surgeons. Whenever irreparable tears coexist with cartilage degeneration/arthritis (rotator cuff arthropathy), the indication of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the golden standard. However, in young patients without arthritis, joint preserving procedures, from debridement to muscle transfers, are preferred. Choosing the most appropriate treatment is not quite established in literature, each treatment modality present particular indications, advantages and disadvantages.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Rotator cuff tear is a common source of pain and disfunction in shoulder, with prevalence increasing with age. Nonsurgical treatment is adequate for many patients; however, for those for whom surgical treatment is indicated, rotator cuff repair provides reliable pain relief and good functional results. However, massive and irreparable tears due to tear size, tendon retraction, muscle atrophy, fatty infiltration are a significant challenge for surgeons. Whenever irreparable tears coexist with cartilage degeneration/arthritis (rotator cuff arthropathy), the indication of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the golden standard. However, in young patients without arthritis, joint preserving procedures, from debridement to muscle transfers, are preferred. Choosing the most appropriate treatment is not quite established in literature, each treatment modality present particular indications, advantages and disadvantages.
Resumo A lesão do manguito rotador é uma fonte frequente de dor e incapacidade funcional na população em geral, e sua prevalência aumenta com o envelhecimento. O tratamento não cirúrgico é adequado para muitos pacientes, e, quando necessário, o reparo cirúrgico resulta em alívio da dor e bons resultados funcionais. Entretanto, lesões extensas e não reparáveis devido ao tamanho da lesão, grau de retração, atrofia muscular e substituição gordurosa apresentam desafios ao tratamento. Nos casos de lesões irreparáveis que coexistem com degeneração articular/osteoartrite (artropatia do manguito rotador), a indicação de artroplastia reversa é o padrão ouro. Porém, nos casos de pacientes mais jovens e sem osteoartrite, as indicações que preservam a articulação, desde o debridamento até as transferências tendinosas, são preferíveis. A escolha do tratamento mais apropriado não está claramente estratificado na literatura e cada modalidade tem suas indicações, vantagens e desvantagens.
ABSTRACT
SUMMARY BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement have been the treatment options for mitral stenosis for several years, however, studies that compare these two modalities are very rare in the literature. ObjectIve: In this article, we aim to investigate the comparison of clinical results of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement. Methods: 527 patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, treated with percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty or mitral valve replacement (276 patients with percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and 251 patients with mitral valve replacement) from 1991 to 2012 were evaluated. The demographic characteristics, clinical, echocardiographic and catheterization data of patients were evaluated retrospectively. The results of early and late clinical follow-up of patients after percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement were also evaluated. Results: The mean follow-up time of the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group was 4.7 years and, for the mitral valve replacement-group, it was 5.45 years. The hospital stay of the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group was shorter than that of the mitral valve replacement group (2.02 days vs 10.62 days, p<0.001). The hospital mortality rate of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement were 0% and 2% respectively (p=0.024). In the percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty group, early postprocedural success rate was 92.1%. The event-free survival of percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty and mitral valve replacement was found to be similar. While reintervention was higher in percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty-group (p<0.001), mortality rate was higher in mitral valve replacement-group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Percutaneous mitral balloon valvuloplasty seems to be more advantageous than mitral valve replacement due to low mortality rates, easy application of the procedure and no need for general anesthesia.