Relationship of the Shape of Subacromial Spur and Rotator Cuff Partial Thickness Tear

BACKGROUND: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between location of the rotator cuff tear and shape of the subacromial spur. METHODS: Totally, 80 consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for partial thickness rotator cuff tear were enrolled for the study. Bigliani's type of the acromion, type of subacromial spur, and location of partial thickness tear of the rotator cuff were evaluated using plain X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging. We then compared the groups of no spur with spur, and heel with traction spur. RESULTS: Of the 80 cases, 25 cases comprised the no spur group, and 55 cases comprised the spur group. There was a significant difference in type of tear (p=0.0004) between these two groups. Bursal side tears were significantly greater (odds ratio=6.000, p=0.0007) in the spur group. Subjects belonging to the spur group were further divided into heel (38 cases) and traction spur (17 cases). Comparing these two groups revealed significant differences only in the type of tear (p=0.0001). Furthermore, the heel spur had significantly greater bursal side tear (odds ratio=29.521, p=0.0005) as compared to traction spur. CONCLUSIONS: The heel spur is more associated to bursal side tear than the traction spur, whereas the traction spur associates greater to the articular side tear.

Fusion Criteria for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Intervertebral Cages : The Significance of Traction Spur

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish new fusion criteria to complement existing Brantigan-Steffee fusion criteria. The primary purpose of intervertebral cage placement is to create a proper biomechanical environment through successful fusion. The existence of a traction spur is an essential predictable radiologic factor which shows that there is instability of a fusion segment. We studied the relationship between the existence of a traction spur and fusion after a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedure. METHODS: This study was conducted using retrospective radiological findings from patients who underwent a PLIF procedure with the use of a cage without posterior fixation between 1993 and 1997 at a single institution. We enrolled 183 patients who were followed for a minimum of five years after the procedure, and used the Brantigan-Steffee classification to confirm the fusion. These criteria include a denser and more mature bone fusion area than originally achieved during surgery, no interspace between the cage and the vertebral body, and mature bony trabeculae bridging the fusion area. We also confirmed the existence of traction spurs on fusion segments and non-fusion segments. RESULTS: The PLIF procedure was done on a total of 251 segments in 183 patients (71 men and 112 women). The average follow-up period was 80.4 +/- 12.7 months. The mean age at the time of surgery was 48.3 +/- 11.3 years (range, 25 to 84 years). Among the 251 segments, 213 segments (84.9%) were fused after five years. The remaining 38 segments (15.1%) were not fused. An analysis of the 38 segments that were not fused found traction spur formation in 20 of those segments (52.6%). No segments had traction spur formation with fusion. CONCLUSION: A new parameter should be added to the fusion criteria. These criteria should be referred to as 'no traction spur formation' and should be used to confirm fusion after a PLIF procedure.