Suppr超能文献

高临界肩角值与全层后上肩袖撕裂有关,低值与原发性肱骨头骨关节炎有关。

High Critical Shoulder Angle Values Are Associated With Full-Thickness Posterosuperior Cuff Tears and Low Values With Primary Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Orthopaedics, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia; St. George and Sutherland Centre for Orthopaedic Research, Sydney, Australia.

Department of Orthopaedics, St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2022 Mar;38(3):709-715.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.08.007. Epub 2021 Aug 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare critical shoulder angle (CSA) measurements using high-quality radiographs in the following groups: Group 1: symptomatic atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff (RC) tears; Group 2: symptomatic primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA); and Group 3: no RC tear or primary GHOA being treated for glenohumeral instability or symptomatic labral pathology (control group).

METHODS

A prospective observational case control study with 10 shoulders in each group was performed GHOA and full-thickness RC tears were diagnosed by radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For these three groups, the exclusion criteria were the following: Group 1) partial thickness RC tears, traumatic RC tears, isolated subscapularis tears, and advanced cuff tear arthropathy with erosion of the superior glenoid; Group 2) secondary causes of glenohumeral arthritis; coexistent full-thickness RC tear; and Group 3) glenoid bone lesions that may affect the CSA measurement. Only shoulders with adequate radiographic quality (Suter-Henninger type A and C) were eligible. A one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey multiple pairwise-comparisons test, was performed to compare the groups. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

Mean CSA values were 37.4° ± 4.7 (RC tear group), 28.9° ± 2.4 (GHOA group), and 32.8° ± 1.1 (control group). The CSA of the RC group was higher than the control group (P = .006) and the GHOA group (P = .000). The CSA of the GHOA group was lower than the control group (P = .027). Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities for the CSA measurement were excellent (Observer 1 [ICC]: .986 [95% CI .970-.993]; Observer 2 [ICC]: .976[95% CI .951-.989]; and Observer 1v2: 0.968[95% CI .933-.985]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a difference in the CSA between patients with symptomatic atraumatic full-thickness RC tears (4.6° higher than the control group), symptomatic GHOA (3.8° lower than the control group), and glenohumeral instability or labral pathology with no RC tear or GHOA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2, prospective observational case control diagnostic study.

摘要

目的

比较以下三组患者的临界肩角(CSA)测量值:组 1:症状性非创伤性全层肩袖(RC)撕裂;组 2:症状性原发性肩盂肱关节炎(GHOA);组 3:无 RC 撕裂或原发性 GHOA,因肩盂肱关节不稳或症状性盂唇病变而行治疗(对照组)。

方法

进行了一项前瞻性观察性病例对照研究,每组 10 例。GHOA 和全层 RC 撕裂通过 X 线和磁共振成像(MRI)诊断。对于这三组,排除标准如下:组 1)部分厚度 RC 撕裂、创伤性 RC 撕裂、孤立性肩胛下肌撕裂和伴肩峰上侵蚀的高级肩袖撕裂关节炎;组 2)肩盂肱关节炎的继发性病因;共存全层 RC 撕裂;组 3)可能影响 CSA 测量的盂骨病变。只有具有足够放射学质量的肩(Suter-Henninger 型 A 和 C)才有资格入选。采用单因素方差分析,随后采用 Tukey 多重两两比较检验进行组间比较。采用组内相关系数(ICC)评估观察者内和观察者间可靠性。

结果

平均 CSA 值分别为 37.4°±4.7(RC 撕裂组)、28.9°±2.4(GHOA 组)和 32.8°±1.1(对照组)。RC 组的 CSA 高于对照组(P=0.006)和 GHOA 组(P=0.000)。GHOA 组的 CSA 低于对照组(P=0.027)。CSA 测量的观察者内和观察者间可靠性均为优秀(观察者 1[ICC]:0.986[95%CI 0.970-0.993];观察者 2[ICC]:0.976[95%CI 0.951-0.989];观察者 1 与观察者 2:0.968[95%CI 0.933-0.985])。

结论

症状性非创伤性全层 RC 撕裂(比对照组高 4.6°)、症状性 GHOA(比对照组低 3.8°)和肩盂肱关节不稳或无 RC 撕裂或 GHOA 的盂唇病变患者的 CSA 存在差异。

证据水平

2 级,前瞻性观察性病例对照诊断研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验