PURPOSE: Non-operative management (NOM) has been validated for blunt liver and splenic injuries. Literature on continuous intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring as a part of NOM remains to be equivocal. The study aimed to find any correlation between clinical parameters and IAP, and their effect on the NOM of patients with blunt liver and splenic injury. METHOD: A prospective cross-sectional study conducted at a level I trauma center from October 2018 to January 2020 including 174 patients who underwent NOM following blunt liver and splenic injuries. Hemodynamically unstable patients or those on ventilators were excluded, as well as patients who suffered significant head, spinal cord, and/or bladder injuries. The study predominantly included males (83.9%) with a mean age of 32.5 years. IAP was monitored continuously and the relation of IAP with various parameters, interventions, and outcomes were measured. Data were summarized as frequency (percentage) or mean ± SD or median (Q₁, Q₃) as indicated. χ² or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, while for continuous variables parametric (independent t-test) or nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon rank sum test) were used as appropriate. Clinical and laboratory correlates of IAP < 12 with p < 0.200 in the univariable logistic regression analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. A p < 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) was seen in 19.0% of the study population. IAH was strongly associated with a high injury severity score (p < 0.001), and other physiological parameters like respiratory rate (p < 0.001), change in abdominal girth (AG) (p < 0.001), and serum creatinine (p < 0.001). IAH along with the number of solid organs involved, respiratory rate, change in AG, and serum creatinine was associated with the intervention, either operative or non-operative (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.013, respectively). On multivariable analysis, IAP (p = 0.006) and the mean change of AG (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with the need for intervention. CONCLUSION As a part of NOM, IAP should be monitored as a continuous vital. However, the decision for any intervention, either operative or non-operative cannot be guided by IAP values alone.
Humans ; Male ; Adult ; Female ; Wounds, Nonpenetrating/physiopathology* ; Spleen/injuries* ; Prospective Studies ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Liver/injuries* ; Middle Aged ; Monitoring, Physiologic/methods* ; Pressure ; Abdominal Injuries/physiopathology* ; Intra-Abdominal Hypertension ; Young Adult

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon (LTT) transfer and muscle advancement (MA). Methods: Eleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed. Results: MA significantly improves functional outcomes, demonstrated by higher Constant-Murley scores (mean difference: 26.26 vs. 18.31, P<0.001), University of California, Los Angeles shoulder scores (14.95 vs. 8.3, P<0.001), acromiohumeral distance (AHD; 1.94 mm vs. 0.40 mm, P<0.001), and greater abduction recovery (46.48° vs. 31.86°, P=0.030). However, visual analog scale score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups (–3.69 vs. –2.33, P<0.001), with greater external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001) and lower retear rates (11.89% vs. 19.42%, P=0.031). The complication profiles differed between techniques: LTT transfer carried a higher risk of graft rupture (2.64% vs. 0%, P=0.031), while arthroscopic MA was associated with increased postoperative stiffness (2.91% vs. 0%, P=0.011). Conclusions: Arthroscopic MA is recommended for younger, active patients with mobile residual tissue to optimize abduction and AHD restoration. In contrast, LTT transfer is better suited for cases involving massive defects requiring dynamic stabilization and external rotation recovery. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized surgical planning that considers tear severity, tissue viability, and patient functional demands. Despite limitations stemming from retrospective study designs and clinical heterogeneity, this review highlights the distinct clinical advantages and appropriate indications for both techniques.