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.
Arthroscopy. 2022 Mar;38(3):709-715.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.08.007. Epub 2021 Aug 16.
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).
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).
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]).
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 2, prospective observational case control diagnostic study.
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)。
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。
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])。
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。
2 级,前瞻性观察性病例对照诊断研究。