• In-Bo Kim and Dong-Wook Jung.
• Busan Bumin Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
• Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul 1; 46 (8): 1909-1918.

BackgroundFew studies have reported on the radiological characteristics and repair integrity of coexistent rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and shoulder stiffness after simultaneous arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and capsular release.PurposeTo evaluate the radiological characteristics and repair integrity of 1-stage arthroscopic surgery of RCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness.Study DesignCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsAmong patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness RCTs, the stiff group underwent simultaneous capsular release for shoulder stiffness, and the nonstiff group had no stiffness. Symptom duration, prevalence of diabetes, tear size, tendon involvement (type 1, supraspinatus; type 2, supraspinatus and subscapularis; and type 3, supraspinatus and infraspinatus; type 4, supraspinatus, subscapularis, and infraspinatus), and fatty infiltration (Goutallier stages 0-4) were evaluated. A retear was appraised using magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical outcomes were assessed using range of motion, the Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score.ResultsThe stiff group showed a significantly lower retear rate (1/39, 2.6%) than the nonstiff group (47/320, 14.7%) ( P = .043). There were significant differences in symptom duration (7.4 ± 6.6 vs 15.0 ± 23.7 months, respectively; P < .001), mediolateral tear size (18.9 ± 8.9 vs 24.1 ± 12.0 mm, respectively; P = .002), tendon involvement (94.9%, 5.1%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 85.3%, 6.9%, 7.8%, and 0.0%, respectively; P = .048), and fatty infiltration of the subscapularis (66.7%, 33.3%, 0.0%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 31.9%, 61.3%, 5.6%, 1.3%, and 0.0%, respectively; P < .001) and teres minor (74.4%, 20.5%, 5.1%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 47.2%, 48.8%, 3.8%, 0.0%, and 0.3%, respectively; P = .007) between the stiff and nonstiff groups. Preoperatively, the stiff group showed significantly worse forward flexion (95.9° ± 23.6° vs 147.7° ± 4.2°, respectively; P < .001), external rotation (17.4° ± 10.1° vs 51.6° ± 12.1°, respectively; P < .001), and internal rotation (L5 vs L2, respectively; P < .001) and lower KSS (52.1 ± 13.8 vs 66.3 ± 13.5, respectively; P < .001) and UCLA scores (18.7 ± 4.8 vs 22.5 ± 4.5, respectively; P < .001) than the nonstiff group. However, these differences became insignificant from 3 months postoperatively for forward flexion ( P > .05) and KSS ( P > .05) and UCLA scores ( P > .05), from 1 year postoperatively for external rotation ( P > .05), and at the last follow-up for internal rotation ( P > .05). A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that only mediolateral tear size (odds ratio, 1.043; P = .014) and type 2 tendon involvement (odds ratio, 4.493; P = .003) were independent predictors of a retear.ConclusionRCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness showed a smaller mediolateral tear size, anterosuperior tendon involvement, and less severe fatty infiltration preoperatively and better repair integrity postoperatively than RCTs without stiffness. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes and range of motion at final follow-up were similar between the 2 groups.

39 keywords...

hide…