RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Information about outcomes after revision rotator cuff repair (RCR) is limited. A more thorough investigation of pain, range of motion (ROM), strength, and functional outcomes is needed. Comparing outcomes between primary and revision rotator cuff repair patients can help surgeons guide patient expectations of the revision procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of a revision repair group to a control group of primary RCR patients. We expect revision RCR patients to have worse clinical outcomes than primary RCR patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent primary or revision RCR between 2012 to 2020 was performed. The case group included 104 revision patients, and the control group included 414 primary RCR patients. Patient visual analog score (VAS) for pain, ROM, strength, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant-Murley scores were collected at baseline, 12 months, 24 months, and final follow-up. RESULTS: The average final follow-up was 43.9 months for primary patients and 63.8 months for revision patients. 352 primary patients and 55 revision patients had a final follow-up of 2 or more years. By final follow-up, primary patients had less pain than revision patients (Δ of 2.11, P < .0001), but both groups improved overall. Primary patients had significant improvements in forward flexion, external rotation, internal rotation, and abduction at 2 years that were lost by final follow-up, but revision patients did not experience any long-term improvement in ROM. These differences in ROM between groups were not significant. Supraspinatus strength in the revision group did not improve nor decline by final follow-up. By final follow-up, both primary and revision patients had improved SST and ASES scores from baseline. Primary patient ASES scores were 17.9 points higher (P < .0001) than revision patients by final follow-up, and there was no difference between groups in SST scores at this time. CONCLUSION: Revision RCR significantly improves patient pain, SST score, and ASES score at 4 years. Revision patients should not expect to see the improvements in range of motion that may occur after primary repair.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a common procedure for treating a variety of shoulder pathologies. However, many patients struggle with postoperative internal rotation (IR) deficits, which often hinder their activities of daily living. The conjoint tendon provides an anatomic barrier that can impede the postoperative IR of the shoulder, and this study aims to evaluate the effect of a conjoint tendon lengthening on the glenohumeral range of motion (ROM) following RSA. METHODS: This study used ten fresh-frozen cadaver specimens of the upper extremity. An RSA was implanted using a standard deltopectoral approach, and the ROM was assessed postimplantation. Following this, the conjoint tendon was identified and lengthened using a tendon sheath z-plasty, and the ROM was rerecorded. Statistical significance for the ROM gains after conjoint tendon lengthening was determined with a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: Following the lengthening of the conjoint tendon, there were statistically significant improvements in all ROMs (P < .05). Subjects demonstrated a notable gain in IR to the back by 10.3 cm (P < .01), and all ROMs increased by at least 10°, except for forward flexion, which increased by 6° (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that lengthening the conjoint tendon improves postoperative ROM of the glenohumeral joint after RSA, offering a potential solution to considerable IR deficits that are commonly encountered post-RSA. Subsequent clinical and biomechanical studies should assess the stability of the shoulder joint following conjoint tendon lengthening.
RESUMEN
Background: Shoulder arthroplasty is a successful procedure that provides pain relief and improvements in function and range of motion. Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are both effective procedures, and their indications continue to expand. We look at the outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and compare it to the outcomes of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: We identified patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at our institution between the years of 2010 and 2020. Data was prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for post-operative range of motion and strength in patients with revision surgery and compared to controls. Measurements were collected preoperatively and postoperatively including range of motion and strength in the affected and unaffected shoulder. We collected patient reported outcome measures in person and via phone to identify subjective outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty. Average final follow-up was 5.27 years. Results: Our total patient sample was split between three groups: those with primary anatomic arthroplasty those who underwent primary reverse arthroplasty, and those who were revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All three groups had significant improvements in abduction and forward elevation from their pre-operative baseline to two years follow-up. Primary reverse had a significant improvement over revision reverse in abduction at one year follow-up. For all other range of motion measurements, there was no statistically significant difference at 2 years between primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patient reported outcomes had a significant increase from pre-op to most recent follow-up in all three groups. Conclusion: Overall, our data suggest there is an improvement in outcomes with both primary and revision surgeries, and that results after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty may be comparable to primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
RESUMEN
The rapid development of gene therapy and genome editing techniques brings up an urgent need to develop safe and efficient nanoplatforms for nucleic acids and CRISPR genome editors. Herein we report a stimulus-responsive silica nanoparticle (SNP) capable of encapsulating biomacromolecules in their active forms with a high loading content and loading efficiency as well as a well-controlled nanoparticle size (~50 nm). A disulfide crosslinker was integrated into the silica network, endowing SNP with glutathione (GSH)-responsive cargo release capability when internalized by target cells. An imidazole-containing component was incorporated into the SNP to enhance the endosomal escape capability. The SNP can deliver various cargos, including nucleic acids (e.g., DNA and mRNA) and CRISPR genome editors (e.g., Cas9/sgRNA ribonucleoprotein (RNP), and RNP with donor DNA) with excellent efficiency and biocompatibility. The SNP surface can be PEGylated and functionalized with different targeting ligands. In vivo studies showed that subretinally injected SNP conjugated with all-trans-retinoic acid (ATRA) and intravenously injected SNP conjugated with GalNAc can effectively deliver mRNA and RNP to murine retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells and liver cells, respectively, leading to efficient genome editing. Overall, the SNP is a promising nanoplatform for various applications including gene therapy and genome editing.
