Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 925 Chestnut Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Bluegrass Orthopaedics & Hand Care, 3480 Yorkshire Medical Park, Lexington, KY 40509.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Jan 15;96(2):99-105. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00551.
Failure of structural healing is not infrequent after rotator cuff repair and often is not associated with clinical outcome. The goals of this study are to describe outcomes in a cohort of patients with a failed rotator cuff repair and to evaluate factors associated with clinical outcome.
This was a retrospective study of all patients with failure of structural integrity after rotator cuff surgical repair. A threshold American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score of 80 points was used to allocate patients into either the successful (≥80 points; Group 1) or unsuccessful (<80 points; Group 2) cohorts. Demographics, patient-centered instruments for shoulder function, radiographic parameters, and shoulder motion were compared between groups.
On the basis of the postoperative ASES score, thirty-three patients (54.1%) were included in Group 1 and twenty-eight patients (45.9%) were included in Group 2. Fifteen patients (53.6%) in Group 2 reported a labor-intensive occupation compared with two patients (6.1%) in Group 1 (p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that labor-intensive occupation (odds ratio [OR], 202.3; p = 0.026), preoperative Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (OR, 0.50; p = 0.028), and preoperative external rotation (OR, 0.91; p = 0.027) were associated with inclusion in Group 2. Age and other demographic variables, including sex, dominant-sided surgery, and medical comorbidities, were similar for the groups.
Successful outcomes were achieved in 54% of patients with failed rotator cuff repair. Those who self-identified their occupation as being labor-intensive represented a special group of patients who are at high risk for a poor outcome after a failed rotator cuff repair.
肩袖修复后结构愈合失败并不少见,而且通常与临床结果无关。本研究的目的是描述一组肩袖修复失败患者的结果,并评估与临床结果相关的因素。
这是一项对所有肩袖手术后结构完整性失败患者的回顾性研究。使用美国肩肘外科医师协会(ASES)评分 80 分作为阈值,将患者分为成功(≥80 分;第 1 组)或不成功(<80 分;第 2 组)队列。比较两组间的人口统计学、以患者为中心的肩部功能量表、影像学参数和肩部活动度。
根据术后 ASES 评分,33 例患者(54.1%)被纳入第 1 组,28 例患者(45.9%)被纳入第 2 组。第 2 组中有 15 例(53.6%)患者从事劳动强度大的职业,而第 1 组仅有 2 例(6.1%)(p<0.001)。多因素回归分析显示,劳动强度大的职业(比值比[OR],202.3;p=0.026)、术前简易肩部测试(SST)评分(OR,0.50;p=0.028)和术前外旋(OR,0.91;p=0.027)与第 2 组的纳入有关。两组的年龄和其他人口统计学变量,包括性别、优势侧手术和合并症,相似。
肩袖修复失败的患者中,有 54%获得了成功的结果。那些自我认定职业劳动强度大的患者是肩袖修复失败后预后不良的高危人群。