Rotator Cuff Calcific Tendinitis: Ultrasound-Guided Needling and Lavage Versus Subacromial Corticosteroids: Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Barbotage (needling and lavage) is often applied in the treatment of calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff (RCCT). In a previously published randomized controlled trial, we reported superior clinical and radiological 1-year outcomes for barbotage combined with a corticosteroid injection in the subacromial bursa (SAIC) compared with an isolated SAIC. There are no trials with a midterm or long-term follow-up of barbotage available. PURPOSE: To compare the 5-year results of 2 regularly applied treatments of RCCT: ultrasound (US)-guided barbotage combined with a SAIC (group 1) versus an isolated US-guided SAIC (group 2). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to group 1 or 2 and evaluated before and after treatment at regular time points until 12 months and also at 5 years using the Constant score (CS), the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). The calcification location and size and Gärtner classification were assessed on radiographs. The rotator cuff condition was evaluated with US. Results were analyzed using t tests, linear regression, and a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 52.0 ± 7.3 years; 25 [52%] female) with a mean baseline CS of 68.7 ± 11.9. After a mean follow-up of 5.1 ± 0.5 years, the mean CS was 90 (95% CI, 83.0-95.9) in group 1 versus 87 (95% CI, 80.5-93.5) in group 2 ( P = .58). The mean improvement in the CS in group 1 was 18 (95% CI, 12.3-23.0) versus 21 (95% CI, 16.2-26.2) in group 2 ( P = .32). There was total resorption in 62% of group 1 and 73% of group 2 ( P = .45). The US evaluation of the rotator cuff condition showed no significant differences between the groups. With the mixed model for repeated measures, taking into account the baseline CS and Gärtner classification, the mean treatment effect for barbotage was 6 (95% CI, -8.9 to 21.5), but without statistical significance. Follow-up scores were significantly associated with baseline scores and the duration of follow-up. Results for the DASH and WORC were similar. There were no significant complications, but 4 patients in group 1 and 16 in group 2 underwent additional treatment during the follow-up period ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: No more significant differences were found in the clinical and radiological outcomes between barbotage combined with a SAIC versus an isolated SAIC after 5 years of follow-up. Registration: NTR2282 (Dutch Trial Registry).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».