OUTCOMES OF ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR AND AUGMENTATION PROCEDURES: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF HEALING AND PATIENT REPORTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Shoulder injuries involving the rotator cuff are prevalent and often require surgical intervention. Rotator cuff repair procedures have historically faced challenges, including varying healing outcomes and high retear rates. However, recent advancements involve the use of augmented patches to enhance tendon-to-bone insertion, either mechanically or biologically. Existing literature supports the favorable outcomes associated with augmented patch techniques. Yet, no study has directly compared the results of augmentation and traditional rotator cuff repair methods. This study aims to assess the outcomes of patients who underwent either rotator cuff repair or augmentation procedures at a minimum of one year postoperatively. The evaluation utilizes patient-reported outcome scores and postoperative healing assessments through MRI. Our hypothesis is that individuals who underwent augmentation procedures would exhibit better healing and patient-reported outcomes. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 131 patients who underwent either rotator cuff repair (RCR) (N=42) or augmentation procedures (AUG) (N=21) between 2015 and 2022. The AUG group comprised 21 patients, with the remaining RCR patients matched for age and gender (2:1 ratio) to the AUG group. Data collected included pre- and post-operative MRIs, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was healing, determined using MRI, with secondary outcomes being WORC and DASH scores. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age, BMI, or sex (p>0.05). The mean postoperative MRI follow-up was 1.27 + 0.8 years for the RCR group and 1.3 + 1.0 years for the AUG group (p > 0.05). The AUG group demonstrated superior graft healing rates compared to the RCR group. Specifically, 92% of patients in the AUG group showed complete healing, with only 0.8% partially healed. In contrast, the RCR group exhibited full healing in 63% of patients, partial healing in 21%, and 25% of patients did not demonstrate any healing. Pre- and post-operatively, there were no differences in WORC or DASH scores between the two groups (p>0.05). Overall, both procedures significantly improved patient-reported outcomes (WORC & DASH) postoperatively (p< 0.05). The use of augmented patches for tendon-to-bone insertion, as observed in the AUG group, resulted in superior graft healing rates compared to traditional RCR. However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of patient-reported outcome scores (WORC and DASH). This suggests that both procedures led to similar improvements in functional outcomes. Further research is necessary to directly compare the efficacy of augmentation and RCR techniques in treating rotator cuff injuries.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».