Role of shoulder gradient in the pathogenesis of rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder gradient has been associated with shoulder pathologies such as shoulder impingement syndrome. AIM: To investigate if there is an association between shoulder gradient and incidence of rotator cuff tear (RCT). METHODS: A total of 61 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of RCT were included in this retrospective study. The anteroposterior radiograph of the shoulder was used to measure shoulder gradient in adduction and neutral rotation positions. The pain level was assessed with the visual analog scale for pain. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 55.7 ± 12.3 years. The mean visual analog scale of the patients was 4.1 ± 1.2. The mean shoulder gradient was 14.11º ± 2.65º for the affected shoulder and 15.8º ± 2.2º for the unaffected shoulders. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.41). A difference of 1.15º ± 1.82º was found between the injured and non-injured shoulder. No significant association was found between the gradient difference of the shoulder and demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. CONCLUSION: Shoulder gradient is not associated with the pathology of RCT. Yet, future studies with more standardization and a larger sample size are needed to investigate the role of shoulder gradient in RCT pathogenesis further.

Significant effect of simvastatin and/or ezetimibe-loaded nanofibers on the healing of femoral defect: An experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Fracture healing complications are associated with significant healthcare and economic burden. In this study, we aimed to investigate how the combined administration of local simvastatin and ezetimibe into the femoral defect of the animal model affects the bone-healing process in comparison with their monotherapy. METHODS: A total of 32 four-month-old adult male Wistar rats were randomized into the four study groups: simvastatin + ezetimibe-loaded nanofibers (group 1), simvastatin-loaded nanofibers (group 2), ezetimibe-loaded nanofibers (group 3), and non-loaded nanofibers (group 4). After the generation of femoral defects, the predesigned nanofibers were locally administered into the defect site. The healing measures were serum and bone osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression, pathologic evaluation of union (Allen's fracture healing scores), and radiographic evaluation of bone density (Hounsfield scale) at weeks 2 and 4. RESULTS: The improvement of all evaluated healing measures was remarkably superior in rats that were treated with loaded nanofibers in comparison with the control group. Also, the improvement of all evaluated healing measures was considerably more in the simvastatin-ezetimibe combination therapy group compared to their monotherapy. All the evaluated measures were superior in the ezetimibe monotherapy group compared to the simvastatin monotherapy group. CONCLUSION: The cumulative effect of simvastatin and ezetimibe on the induction of bone healing is more significant than the individual effect of these drugs. Therefore, local administration of nanofibers loaded with simvastatin and ezetimibe could be regarded as a promising osteoinductive compound for the acceleration of bone repair.