Salem Bone and Joint Center, Salem, Ohio, U.S.A.
Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland.
Arthroscopy. 2019 Aug;35(8):2295-2300. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.034. Epub 2019 Jul 23.
To prospectively compare the healing rates and functional outcomes of large and massive rotator cuff tears repaired with either a load-sharing rip-stop (LSRS) technique or single-row (SR) repair.
We performed a retrospective comparison of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs of large and massive tears performed with 2 different repair techniques. Over a 1-year period, all tears with limited tendon mobility were repaired with an LSRS technique. Over the following 1-year period, all similar tears were repaired with an SR technique. There were 17 patients in the LSRS repair group and 18 in the SR repair group. Healing was assessed with ultrasound at a minimum of 6 months postoperatively, and functional outcome was assessed at a minimum of 24 months.
No difference in postoperative range of motion was found between the 2 groups. Likewise, no difference in the visual analog scale score for pain or functional outcomes according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, or Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was found between the 2 groups. Complete rotator cuff healing was observed in 53% of LSRS repairs compared with 11% of SR repairs (P = .010).
At short-term follow-up, there is no difference in functional outcomes after an LSRS technique versus an SR repair technique for large and massive rotator cuff tears with limited tendon mobility. However, structural healing appears to be higher with an LSRS technique.
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
前瞻性比较采用负载分担防撕缝线(LSRS)技术或单排(SR)修复治疗大、巨大肩袖撕裂的愈合率和功能结果。
我们对采用 2 种不同修复技术的关节镜肩袖撕裂修复进行了回顾性比较。在 1 年期间,所有活动度有限的撕裂均采用 LSRS 技术修复。在接下来的 1 年期间,所有类似的撕裂均采用 SR 技术修复。LSRS 修复组有 17 例患者,SR 修复组有 18 例患者。术后至少 6 个月行超声检查评估愈合情况,至少 24 个月评估功能结果。
2 组术后活动范围无差异。同样,2 组间视觉模拟评分法(VAS)疼痛评分或美国肩肘外科医师协会(ASES)评分、简单肩测试(SST)或单评估数字评估(SANE)评分的功能结果也无差异。LSRS 修复组完全愈合率为 53%,而 SR 修复组为 11%(P =.010)。
在短期随访中,对于活动度有限的大、巨大肩袖撕裂,采用 LSRS 技术与 SR 修复技术的功能结果无差异。然而,LSRS 技术的结构愈合似乎更高。
III 级,回顾性比较研究。