Comparison of modified load-sharing rip-stop technique with suture bridge for repair of massive rotator cuff tears
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20200926-00633
- VernacularTitle:关节镜下改良阻挡线减张技术与缝线桥技术治疗大型肩袖撕裂的疗效比较
- Author:
Jun CHEN
1
;
Juexiang LOU
;
Guojian SHENTU
;
Guohong XU
;
Weikai WANG
Author Information
1. 浙江省东阳市人民医院关节与运动医学科 322100
- Keywords:
Arthroscopy;
Shoulder joint;
Treatment outcome;
Rotator cuff tear;
Repair technique
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2021;23(8):656-662
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare modified load-sharing rip-stop (mLSRS) technique with suture bridge (SB) for repair of massive rotator cuff tears.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted of the 68 patients who had been treated for massive rotator cuff tears from January 2017 to June 2019 at Department of Orthopedics, Dongyang People's Hospital. They were 26 males and 42 females, aged (63.4±1.0) years (from 45 to 84 years), with 56 right and 12 left sides affected. Of them, 32 were treated by mLSRS and 36 by double-line SB. The 2 groups were compared in terms of visual analog scale (VAS), Constant-Murley scoring, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scoring and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scoring at the final follow-ups, and Sugaya ultrasonic evaluation of the repair integrity at postoperative 12 months.Results:There was no statistically significant difference in preoperative general data between the 2 groups, showing they were comparable ( P>0.05). Operations were successful in all patients who were followed up for 13 to 44 months (average, 19.7 months). No patient suffered from such complications as joint infection or anchor withdrawal. At the final follow-up, the mLSRS group scored respectively 0.9±0.6, 85.3±4.8, 33.1±1.0 and 86.4±5.0 in VAS, Constant-Murley, UCLA and ASES scores, significantly improved than their preoperative values (7.2±0.8, 47.0±3.1, 15.8±3.0 and 48.5±4.5) ( P<0.05); the SB group scored respectively 1.1±0.6, 86.6±3.4, 33.2±1.1 and 86.9±4.6 in the above indicators, also significantly improved than their preoperative values (7.3±0.7, 46.5±4.7, 14.4±2.7 and 48.8±4.3) ( P<0.05); there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in preoperative or postoperative values ( P> 0.05). The Sugaya ultrasonic evaluation showed no significant difference in rotator cuff healing between the 2 groups at postoperative 12 months ( P>0.05); according to the positions of re-tears, the SB group had significantly more type Ⅱ re-tears (20%, 2/10) than the mLSRS group (0, 0/4) ( P<0.05). Conclusion:Although both mLSRS and SB techniques can achieve satisfactory and comparable clinical outcomes in arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears, mLSRS may lead to fewer postoperative type Ⅱ re-tears than SB.
