Revision rotator cuff repair: can a Sugaya III tendon considered to be healed or not.

BACKGROUND: Sugaya et al described a classification system to assess postoperative rotator cuff tendon healing. Although Sugaya I and II tendons can be considered as healed and Sugaya type IV and V can be considered as retorn, the exact status of Sugaya III tendons remains unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of Sugaya III tendons on postoperative functional scores in a population of patients undergoing revision rotator cuff repair. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the records of all patients who underwent revision rotator cuff repair in one of 12 different institutions between July 2001 and December 2020. A total of 203 shoulders were included (59% males, mean age: 51 ± 8 years old, mean follow-up 11.5 years [range: 2-28.8 yr]). Fifty-four patients (61% males, mean age 52 ± 6 years old, mean follow-up 14.1 years [range: 10.4-28.8 yr]) had a follow-up ≥10 years (mean 14.1 years [range: 10.4-28.8 yr]) and were included in a long-term follow-up subgroup analysis. Structural integrity of the repaired tendon was evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging at last follow-up. Functional scores, acromiohumeral index (AHI), and progression of fatty infiltration and of osteoarthritis were compared according to Sugaya type. RESULTS: Mean Constant score and mean strength were significantly higher in Sugaya I and II tendons than in Sugaya III (P = .021 and .003) and Sugaya IV and V tendons (P = .07 and .038), but did not differ between Sugaya III and Sugaya IV and V tendons. Mean Subjective Shoulder Value, pain, AHI were significantly higher and fatty infiltration and progression in the Hamada classification were significantly lower in Sugaya I and II tendons and in Sugaya III than in Sugaya IV and V tendons (P < .05), but did not differ between Sugaya I and II and Sugaya III tendons. Similar characteristics could also be observed in the long-term follow-up subgroup. CONCLUSION: Sugaya III tendons after revision rotator cuff repair do not allow restoration of strength thereby impacting the Constant score. However, there seems to be a protective effect of Sugaya III tendons with regard to pain, progression of proximal migration of the humeral head, osteoarthritis, and fatty infiltration, which seems to last at long-term follow-up.

Long-term results of revision rotator cuff repair for failed cuff repair: a minimum 10-year follow-up study.

HYPOTHESIS: Rotator cuff repair remains associated with high retear rates, which range from 13% to 79%. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and structural results after revision rotator cuff repair at a minimum 10-year follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the records of all patients who underwent revision rotator cuff repair in 3 different institutions between July 2001 and December 2007 with a minimum 10-year follow-up. A total of 54 patients (61% males, mean age 52 ± 6 years old) met the inclusion criteria. Outcome measures included pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), range of motion (ROM), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and the Constant score. Superior migration, osteoarthritis, and acromiohumeral interval (AHI) were assessed on standard radiographs. Fatty infiltration and structural integrity of the repaired tendon were evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomographic arthrogram. RESULTS: At a mean 14.1 years (10.4-20.5), range of motion did not progress significantly in elevation and internal rotation between pre- and postoperation (158° [range, 100°-180°] to 164° [range, 60°-180°], P = .33, and L3 [range, sacrum-T12] to T12 [range, buttocks-T7], P = .34, respectively) and decreased in active external rotation from 45° (range, 10°-80°) to 39° (range, 10°-80°) (P = .02). However, VAS, SSV, and Constant score were all significantly improved at last follow-up (P < .001). AHI decreased significantly (P = .002) from 10 mm (7-14 mm) to 8 mm (0-12 mm). Two percent of the supraspinatus/infraspinatus tendons were Sugaya 1, 24% were Sugaya 2, 35% were Sugaya 3, 12% were Sugaya 4, and 27% were Sugaya 5. Goutallier score progressed for all muscles, but this did not reach significance and mean Goutallier remained <2 for all 4 muscles at last follow-up. Hamada score progressed from 0% >grade 2 preoperatively to 6% >grade 2 at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Revision rotator cuff repair provides significant pain relief and improvement in functional scores at long-term follow-up. The mild progression of fatty infiltration, AHI, and Hamada score suggests that despite high retear rates (39% of stage 4 and 5 in the Sugaya classification), revision repair could possibly have a protective role on the evolution toward cuff tear arthropathy.

Arthroscopic revision cuff repair: do tendons have a second chance to heal?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated postoperative tendon integrity after reoperation for failed rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair (AR-RCR) and identify the risk factors related to re-retear. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 55 years) with primary failed open (38%) or arthroscopic (62%) cuff repairs underwent AR-RCR and were reviewed regarding clinical examination findings and imaging studies. Patients with massive cuff tears and upward humeral migration (acromiohumeral distance < 6 mm) or glenohumeral osteoarthritis were excluded. Revision repair was performed by a single, experienced shoulder surgeon. Complete footprint coverage was achieved in all cases using a single-row (70%), double-row (19%), or side-to-side (11%) technique. The primary outcome measure was tendon healing assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (57 cases) or computed tomography arthrogram (12 cases) performed at minimum 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores, subjective results, and complications. The mean follow-up period was 43 months (range, 12-136 months). RESULTS: The cuff tendons did not heal to the tuberosity in 36% of the shoulders (25 of 69) following revision cuff surgery. Absence of tendon healing was associated with poorer shoulder function (average Constant score, 69 ± 20 vs. 54 ± 18; P = .003) and a decreased Subjective Shoulder Value (72% vs. 54%, P = .002). Factors that were negatively associated with tendon healing were age ≥ 55 years (odds ratio [OR], 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.6-12.5]; P = .02), tendon retraction of stage 2 or higher (OR, 4.4 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-14.3]; P = .01), and fatty infiltration index > 2 (OR, 10.2; P < .0001). No differences in retear rates were found between single-row and double-row cases. In 36 shoulders, tissue samples were harvested and submitted for bacteriologic culture analysis; 13 (36%) showed positive findings for infection (Cutibacterium acnes in 12 of 13) and associated antibiotic treatment was given. Overall, 25% of patients had unsatisfactory clinical results and 22% were disappointed or dissatisfied. At last follow-up, 4 patients (5.7%) underwent reoperations, with a second AR-RCR in 1 and conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 3. CONCLUSION: Despite careful patient selection and intraoperative complete footprint coverage, in this study the tendons did not heal to bone in 36% of cases after revision cuff surgery. The absence of tendon healing is associated with poorer clinical and subjective results. Patients aged ≥ 55 years and patients with larger tears (stage 2 or higher) and/or muscle fatty infiltration (fatty infiltration index > 2) have significantly lower rates of healing. Surgeons should be aware that structurally failed cuff repair may also be associated with low-grade infection.