Partial Superior Capsular Reconstruction to Augment Arthroscopic Repair of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears Using Autogenous Biceps Tendon: Effect on Retear Rate.

BACKGROUND: Massive rotator cuff tears have a high incidence of postoperative retear that can reach 90%. It is still unclear which intervention may reduce the incidence of retear and improve the functional and clinical outcomes. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and structural outcomes at 2 years after repair of reparable massive rotator cuff tears with and without the use of partial superior capsular reconstruction (pSCR), using the autologous long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) as a graft. It was hypothesized that augmentation with a pSCR would decrease retear rates. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The authors compared arthroscopic repair of massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears with and without augmentation using the LHBT for pSCR between 2015 and 2017. After applying the selection criteria, 106 patients were included in the study and distributed into 2 groups of 50 and 56 patients. Patients in the first group (50 patients) underwent arthroscopic repair without use of the LHBT (AR group), and patients in the second group (56 patients) underwent arthroscopic repair with use of the LHBT for pSCR (AR-LHBT group). The structural outcome was evaluated by ultrasound at 2 years of follow-up. Function and pain were evaluated preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS). Pre- and postoperative active range of motion, including forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction, were also documented. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between groups regarding the baseline characteristics. After 24 months, both groups showed significant improvement from preoperative ASES scores, VAS score, and active range of motion (P < .01 for all). Patients in the AR-LHBT group showed significant improvements in postoperative functional and pain scores compared with the AR group in all measurements at the 2-year follow-up (ASES score: 77.23 ± 7.45 vs 71.04 ± 9.28, P < .01; VAS score: 1.64 ± 1.03 vs 2.12 ± 1.06, P < .01). Final range of motion was significantly increased for the AR-LHBT group for forward elevation (155 [interquartile range {IQR}, 150-160] vs 150 [IQR, 140-170]; P < .01) and abduction (150 [IQR, 140-157.5] vs 120 [IQR, 100-140]; P < .01), but external rotation was significantly greater for the AR group (54.43 ± 10.55 vs 59.5 ± 10.55; P < .01). Postoperative ultrasonography at the 2-year follow-up revealed a higher retear rate in the AR group than in the AR-LHBT group (46% vs 14%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Use of the LHBT for pSCR to augment massive rotator cuff tears resulted in markedly lower retear rates and modestly improved pain and function outcomes compared with repair alone.

Retears of the Rotator Cuff: An Ultrasonographic Assessment During the First Postoperative Year.

BACKGROUND: Surgical repair of rotator cuff (RC) tears is an effective treatment option. However, the prevalence of recurrent ruptures is high. HYPOTHESIS: Recurrent tears are a frequent complication of surgical repair of RC tears. Their incidence might be influenced by factors such as the patient's age and size of the initial tear. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Data from 90 adult patients who underwent arthroscopic RC repair between 2014 and 2017 and underwent an ultrasound examination 6 to 12 months after surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Massive tears were repaired using a double-row technique, and nonmassive tears were repaired with a single-row technique. Clinical records were reviewed for demographic information. RESULTS: All patients (57.8% women; 42.2% men) were older than 18 years (mean, 58.9 years). Of these patients, 30.0% (27/90) had massive tears, which were primarily found in patients ≥60 years (74.1%; 20/27). Complete healing was seen in 74.5% of all repairs during follow-up. A total of 23 patients (25.5%) had retears (13 complete; 10 partial), which were diagnosed by ultrasound imaging 6 to 12 months after the initial surgery. The occurrence of retears was more prevalent in patients with massive tears than in patients with nonmassive tears (40.7% vs 19.0%, respectively); the difference was statistically significant (P = .03). Reruptures occurred in 50.0% of patients older than 60 years with massive tears. Although patients older than 60 years had more recurrent tears (32.6%) compared with younger patients (18.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (P = .12). CONCLUSION: One-quarter of the patients who had undergone surgical repair of an RC tear had recurrent ruptures. There was a statistically significant association between the initial massive tear and a retear. Patients older than 60 years showed a higher recurrence rate, but this difference lacked statistical significance. Reruptures occurred in 50.0% of patients older than 60 years with massive tears.

Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty is a bone-conserving arthroplasty option for patients with glenohumeral arthritis. It has been successful in the older patient population. However, data regarding the results of arthroplasty in younger, more active patients are lacking. We report the two-year results of this procedure in active patients who were less than fifty-five years of age. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected clinical data on a series of thirty-six patients under fifty-five years of age with end-stage glenohumeral arthrosis, but without osteonecrosis, who had undergone a cementless humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. All patients were followed for a minimum of two years. We assessed pain, function, and patient satisfaction and documented all complications. Radiographs were evaluated for implant loosening. RESULTS: The thirty-six patients had a mean age of 42.3 years and were followed for a mean of 38.1 months. Scores measured with a visual analog pain scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scale, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale all improved significantly from preoperatively to two years postoperatively (p < 0.001). Complications included one traumatic subscapularis rupture at six weeks, three cases of arthrofibrosis, and one deep hematoma. No obvious radiographic evidence of loosening was noted at the time of the latest follow-up. One shoulder was converted to a stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty at twenty-four months because of pain, but the implant was not loose at the revision. The remaining thirty-five patients were satisfied with the outcome at the time of the latest follow-up and had returned to their desired activity. CONCLUSIONS: Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty is a viable treatment option for younger, active patients. Early results indicate that the desired function and pain relief can be expected. Implant loosening and glenoid wear do not appear to be concerns in the short term despite the high activity levels of many patients. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine if these results persist.