Lim Winston Shang Rong, Lie Denny Tjiauw Tjoen, Mitra Amit Kanta, Chang Paul Chee Cheng
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
JSES Int. 2020 Jul 22;5(1):93-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.06.010. eCollection 2021 Jan.
Patients with recalcitrant frozen shoulder traditionally undergo arthroscopic capsular release. Some patients may have a concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tear (PTT). There is limited evidence if these PTT require repair at the same setting. We aim to compare if patients undergoing concomitant rotator cuff repair do better than patients undergoing capsular release alone. Secondarily, we aim to determine if outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release differ for patients with and without PTT.
A retrospective review of patients with frozen shoulders undergoing arthroscopic capsular release between 2012 and 2016 was performed. Patients with partial-thickness tears and patients without rotator cuff tears were included. Clinical outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months after operation.
There were 33 patients with PTT-15 underwent capsular release without repair (CR group), whereas 18 underwent capsular release with rotator cuff repair (RCR group). A total of 62 control patients without rotator cuff tears (No Tear) underwent arthroscopic capsular release only. For patients with PTT, there were no significant differences in preoperative demographics and function between the CR and RCR group. The CR group had significantly worse preoperative pain. At 1-year follow-up, the RCR group had significantly better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function than the CR group. For patients undergoing capsular release only, the No Tear group had better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function at 1 year compared with the CR group.
Patients with a stiff, frozen shoulder and concomitant PTT do benefit from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with capsular release. The benefit is evident at 1-year follow-up.
传统上,顽固性肩周炎患者需接受关节镜下关节囊松解术。部分患者可能合并有部分厚度的肩袖撕裂(PTT)。关于这些PTT是否需要在同一手术中修复的证据有限。我们旨在比较同时进行肩袖修复的患者是否比仅接受关节囊松解术的患者效果更好。其次,我们旨在确定关节镜下关节囊松解术后,有PTT和无PTT的患者的预后是否不同。
对2012年至2016年间接受关节镜下关节囊松解术的肩周炎患者进行回顾性研究。纳入有部分厚度撕裂的患者和无肩袖撕裂的患者。在术前以及术后3个月、6个月、12个月收集临床结果。
33例有PTT的患者中,15例接受了不修复的关节囊松解术(CR组),而18例接受了关节囊松解术并进行肩袖修复(RCR组)。共有62例无肩袖撕裂的对照患者(无撕裂组)仅接受了关节镜下关节囊松解术。对于有PTT的患者,CR组和RCR组术前的人口统计学和功能方面无显著差异。CR组术前疼痛明显更严重。在1年随访时,RCR组的内旋功能明显更好,疼痛更轻,功能比CR组更好。对于仅接受关节囊松解术的患者,无撕裂组在1年时的内旋功能更好,疼痛更轻,功能比CR组更好。
患有僵硬、冻结肩且合并PTT的患者确实受益于关节镜下肩袖修复联合关节囊松解术。这种益处在1年随访时很明显。