Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회지)

Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Arthroscopic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Repair in Elderly Patients

고령 환자의 관절경적 회전근 개 봉합술의 결과

  • Cheon, Sang Jin (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dong Ho (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Barun Hospital) ;
  • Park, Yong Geon (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Son, Seung Min (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital)
  • 천상진 (부산대학교 의과대학 부산대학교병원 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 이동호 (바른병원 정형외과) ;
  • 박용건 (부산대학교 의과대학 부산대학교병원 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 손승민 (양산부산대학교병원 정형외과)
  • Received : 2019.09.08
  • Accepted : 2019.12.23
  • Published : 2020.02.28
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the clinical and structural outcomes of an at least two-year follow-up of arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repairs with a single-row or suture-bridge technique in patients more than 65 years of age. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear who were more than 65 years of age, underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair after at least six months of conservative treatment, agreed to take a follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) six months postoperatively, and visited outpatient for at least two years were enrolled in this study. Clinical evaluations were done using The University of California Los Angeles score, Constant Shoulder Score, and visual analogue scale evaluated two years after the surgery. The structural integrity was analyzed using follow-up MRI. During surgery, a suture-bridge technique was used if the rotator cuff tendon could cover half of the footprint under constant tension. Otherwise, single-row repair was performed. Results: The samples were 158 cases, consisting of 93 single-repairs and 65 suture-bridge repairs. A preoperative comparison of the age distribution, fatty degeneration of supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscle, medial retraction of torn cuff tendon, and tear size between the two groups were not significant. The clinical scores were improved significantly in all cases. The distribution of the structural integrity by Sugaya classification were 49 cases in type 1 (31.0%), 62 cases in type 2 (39.2%), 30 cases in type 3 (19.0%), 11 cases in type 4 (7.0%), and six cases in type 5 (3.8%). The re-tear rate of the single-row group was 9.7% (nine out of 93 cases) and 12.3% (eight out of 65 cases) for the suture-bridge group. Conclusion: Satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes were achieved after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair in patients more than 65 years of age. Both single-row and suture-bridge techniques would be beneficial for the elderly.

목적: 65세 이상 고령의 회전근 개 전층파열 환자에 대해 일열 봉합술 또는 교량형 봉합술을 시행하고 최소 2년간 추시한 임상적 결과와 영상의학적 결과를 분석한다. 대상 및 방법: 2008년 8월부터 2017년 8월 사이에 본원에서 회전근 개 전층파열로 진단하고 보존적 치료 시도에 불응하는 65세 이상 환자에 대해 관절경적 회전근 개 봉합술을 시행하였다. 과도하지 않은 일정한 장력하에 견인하여 회전근 개 건이 족문 절반 이상을 덮으면 교량형 봉합술을, 절반 이상을 덮지 못하면 일열 봉합술을 시행하였다. 술 후 6개월째 시행한 추시 자기공명영상과 술 후 2년째 시행한 임상적 평가 지표(The University of California Los Angeles score, Constant Shoulder Score, visual analogue scale)를 참고하여 분석하였다. 환자의 술 전후 임상적 평가 지표, 술 후 구조적 연속성 분포 및 재파열 빈도를 분석하였다. 결과: 연구대상 기준을 충족한 환자는 모두 158예로 일열 봉합술 93예, 교량형 봉합술 65예였다. 임상적 지표는 전례에서 술 후 유의하게 향상되었고 두 군 간의 유의한 차이는 보이지 않았다. 구조적 연속성의 Sugaya 분류 분포는 1형 49예(31.0%), 2형 62예(39.2%), 3형 30예(19.0%), 4형 11예(7.0%), 5형 6예(3.8%)를 보였고 재파열률은 일열 봉합군에서 9.7% (93예 중 9예), 교량형 봉합군에서 12.3% (65예 중 8예)를 보였다. 결론: 65세 이상 고령 환자의 회전근 개 전층파열 환자에 대한 관절경적 봉합술 결과, 우수한 임상적 및 방사선적 결과를 얻었으며 일열 봉합술과 교량형 봉합술 모두 유용한 것으로 생각한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 과제는 부산대학교 기본연구지원사업(2년)에 의하여 연구되었음.

References

  1. Jeong J, Shin DC, Kim TH, Kim K. Prevalence of asymptomatic rotator cuff tear and their related factors in the Korean population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:30-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.003
  2. Fehringer EV, Sun J, VanOeveren LS, Keller BK, Matsen FA 3rd. Full-thickness rotator cuff tear prevalence and correlation with function and co-morbidities in patients sixty-five years and older. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:881-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.039
  3. Bhatia S, Greenspoon JA, Horan MP, Warth RJ, Millett PJ. Two-year outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in recreational athletes older than 70 years. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1737-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515577623
  4. Verma NN, Bhatia S, Baker CL 3rd, et al. Outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients aged 70 years or older. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:1273-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.01.031
  5. Bedeir YH, Jimenez AE, Grawe BM. Recurrent tears of the rotator cuff: Effect of repair technique and management options. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2018;10:7593. https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2018.7593
  6. Millett PJ, Warth RJ, Dornan GJ, Lee JT, Spiegl UJ. Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:586-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.10.006
  7. Kim KC, Shin HD, Lee WY, Han SC. Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: double-row versus suture-bridge technique. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:294-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511425657
  8. Boyer P, Bouthors C, Delcourt T, et al. Arthroscopic double-row cuff repair with suture-bridging: a structural and functional comparison of two techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:478-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2401-7
  9. Lee KW, Yang DS, Lee GS, Ma CH, Choy WS. Clinical outcomes and repair integrity after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: suture-bridge versus double-row modified Mason-Allen technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1953-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.04.005
  10. Gartsman GM, Drake G, Edwards TB, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of arthroscopic full-thickness supraspinatus rotator cuff repair: single-row versus double-row suture bridge (transosseous equivalent) fixation. Results of a prospective, randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:1480-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.020
  11. Wade R, Salgar S. Clinico-radiological evaluation of retear rate in arthroscopic double row versus single row repair technique in full thickness rotator cuff tear. J Orthop. 2017;14:313-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2017.01.001
  12. Fei W, Guo W. A biomechanical and histological comparison of the suture bridge and conventional double-row techniques of the repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in a rabbit model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0601-7
  13. Ruotolo C, Fow JE, Nottage WM. The supraspinatus footprint: an anatomic study of the supraspinatus insertion. Arthroscopy. 2004;20:246-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2004.01.002
  14. Thigpen CA, Shaffer MA, Gaunt BW, Leggin BG, Williams GR, Wilcox RB 3rd. The American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists' consensus statement on rehabilitation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:521-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.018
  15. DeOrio JK, Cofield RH. Results of a second attempt at surgical repair of a failed initial rotator-cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:563-7. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198466040-00011
  16. Patte D. Classification of rotator cuff lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;254:81-6.
  17. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and post-operative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;304:78-83.
  18. Kluger R, Bock P, Mittlbock M, Krampla W, Engel A. Long-term survivorship of rotator cuff repairs using ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:2071-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511406395
  19. Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. A prospective outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:953-60. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00512
  20. Valencia Mora M, Morcillo Barrenechea D, Martin Rios MD, Foruria AM, Calvo E. Clinical outcome and prognostic factors of revision arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:2157-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4392-7
  21. Flurin PH, Hardy P, Abadie P, et al.; French Arthroscopy Society (SFA). Rotator cuff tears after 70 years of age: a prospective, randomized, comparative study between decompression and arthroscopic repair in 154 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(8 Suppl):S371-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.005
  22. Rhee YG, Cho NS, Yoo JH. Clinical outcome and repair integrity after rotator cuff repair in patients older than 70 years versus patients younger than 70 years. Arthroscopy. 2014;30:546-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.006
  23. Moraiti C, Valle P, Maqdes A, et al. Comparison of functional gains after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients over 70 years of age versus patients under 50 years of age: a prospective multicenter study. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.08.020
  24. Gerhardt C, Hug K, Pauly S, Marnitz T, Scheibel M. Arthroscopic single-row modified mason-allen repair versus double-row suture bridge reconstruction for supraspinatus tendon tears: a matched-pair analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2777-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512462123
  25. Kim YK, Moon SH, Cho SH. Treatment outcomes of single- versus double-row repair for larger than medium-sized rotator cuff tears: the effect of preoperative remnant tendon length. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2270-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513499000
  26. Stahnke K, Nikulka C, Diederichs G, Haneveld H, Scheibel M, Gerhardt C. Serial MRI evaluation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in double-row technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:665-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2409-9