MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313886843 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000002520

High Acromial Slope and Low Acromiohumeral Distance Increase the Risk of Retear of the Supraspinatus Tendon After Repair

2022· article· en· W4313886843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Caffard, Desdemona Kralewski, Marius Ludwig, Daniel Dornacher, Michael Fuchs, Thomas Kappe, Heiko Reichel, Mirco Sgroi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffAcromionTendonTearsSurgerySagittal planeOdds ratioCoronal planeAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Retearing of the supraspinatus (SSP) tendon after repair is relatively common, but its cause is rarely clear. Although the role of acromion morphology and glenoid orientation in the pathogenesis of primary SSP tendon tears have frequently been analyzed, their association with the risk of rerupture of a repaired SSP tendon is poorly understood. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is acromial morphology associated with the risk of retear after SSP tendon repair? (2) Is there an association between inclination and version of the glenoid and the odds for retear of the SSP tendon after repair? (3) Are there differences in outcome scores between patients who had intact cuff repairs and those who had retears? METHODS: Between August 2012 and December 2015, we treated 92 patients for SSP tendon tears; all of these patients were considered for inclusion in the present study. We considered patients with complete tear of the SSP that was reconstructed with a double-row repair and a minimum follow-up of 2 years as potentially eligible. Based on these criteria, 28% (26 of 92) were excluded because they had a partial rupture and did not receive a double-row reconstruction. A further 9% (eight of 92) were excluded because of missing planes or slices (such as sagittal, axial, or frontal) on MRI, and another 3% (three of 92) were lost before the minimum study follow-up interval or had incomplete datasets, leaving 60% (55 of 92) for inclusion in the present analysis. All included patients had a minimum follow-up of 2 years; follow-up with MRI occurred at a mean duration of 2.3 ± 0.4 years postoperatively. All patients were asked to complete the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index and Oxford Shoulder Scores, and they underwent MRI of the operated-on shoulder. Preoperative true AP radiographs and MR images of the affected shoulders were retrospectively assessed by measuring the acromiohumeral interval, critical shoulder angle, acromial slope, acromial tilt, acromial index, lateral acromial angle, and glenoid version and inclination. The patients also underwent acromioplasty, in which the underface of the acromion was flattened. To rule out any change in the above parameters because of acromioplasty, these parameters were compared using preoperative and postoperative MR images and showed no difference. In addition, the tendon integrity and quality on postoperative MRI were analyzed independently of one another by the same two observers using the Sugaya and Castricini classifications, accounting for atrophy and fatty degeneration of the SSP muscle. To assess interobserver reliability, the two observers took measurements independently from each other. They were orthopaedic residents who completed a training session before taking the measurements. All measurements had excellent intrarater (Cronbach alpha 0.996 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.00; p > 0.01) and interrater (interrater correlation coefficient 0.975 [95% CI 0.97 to 0.98]; p > 0.01) reliabilities. To answer the study's first question, SSP integrity on postoperative MRI was compared with acromial morphologic parameters measured on preoperative AP radiographs and MR images. To answer the second question, the postoperative integrity and quality of the SSP tendon were correlated with glenoid inclination and glenoid version. To answer our third question, we compared outcome scores between patients with intact SSP tendons and those with reruptured SSP tendons. To investigate any correlation among the acromial morphology, glenoid orientation, and postoperative outcomes, a binomial logarithmic regression analysis was performed. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine cutoff points for the radiologic parameters that showed a correlation in the binomial regression analysis. RESULTS: After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as acromioplasty or preoperative fatty infiltration as well as muscle atrophy, the only morphological parameters associated with a higher risk (adjusted odds ratio) of SSP tendon rerupture were the acromiohumeral interval (adjusted OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.9 to 0.99]; p < 0.01) and acromial slope (adjusted OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.8]; p < 0.01). The critical shoulder angle, acromial tilt, acromial index, and lateral acromial angle were not associated with the risk of rerupture. The cutoff values for acromial slope and acromiohumeral interval were 24.5° and 7.4 mm, respectively. Patients with an acromiohumeral interval smaller than 7.4 mm or an acromial slope greater than 24.5° had higher odds (acromiohumeral interval: OR 11 [95% CI 2 to 46]; p = 0.01 and acromial slope: OR 9 [95% CI 2 to 46]; p = 0.04) for rerupture of the SSP. No difference was found between patients with intact SSP tendons and those with reruptured SSP tendons in terms of glenoid inclination (6° ± 4° versus 6° ± 3°, mean difference 0.8° [-1° to 3°]; p < 0.48) and glenoid version (-2° ± 3° versus -3° ± 3°, mean difference 1° [-1° to 3°]; p < 0.30). No difference was found between the intact and reruptured SSP groups regarding clinical outcomes (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index: 98 ± 2 versus 97 ± 3, mean difference 0.73 [95% CI -0.30 to 0.31]; p = 0.96; Oxford Shoulder Score: 26 ± 13 versus 23 ± 10, mean difference 2.80 [95% CI -4.12 to 9.72]; p = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The preoperative acromiohumeral interval and acromial slope are associated with SSP tendon rerupture after repair. Conversely, the critical shoulder angle, acromial tilt, lateral acromial angle, and acromial index had no association with the postoperative outcome. Additionally, glenoid inclination and version were not associated with the rerupture rate after SSP tendon repair. A detailed analysis of the acromiohumeral interval and acromial slope is recommended in clinical practice in patients undergoing SSP tendon repair. Surgeons should consider measuring the acromiohumeral interval and acromial slope preoperatively when performing SSP repair, especially in the context of planned acromioplasties. Future studies should investigate the role of acromioplasty during SSP repair in patients with a pathologic acromial slope and acromiohumeral interval. In this context, it should be determined whether a more-radical acromioplasty could reduce the risk of rerupture of the SSP in these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207