Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging vs. perioperative arthroscopy to measure stage 1 ruptures of the supraspinatus tendon for surgical planning.

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative assessment of supraspinatus tendon tear (STT) size is important for surgical planning. Our aims were to evaluate the correlation between stage 1 STT size measured preoperatively by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) and size measured perioperatively by arthroscopy. The concordance between preoperative tear size and the surgical plan was also assessed. METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, noncontrolled, interventional study was carried out in patients with a stable stage 1 STT. Three months before surgery, STT size was measured in the sagittal and coronal planes by a radiologist by qMRI (1.5 T). Three months later, the surgeon measured the size of the tear again on the same qMRI scans and decided on the most appropriate surgical plan. During arthroscopy, the surgeon measured the size of the tear again using a graduated sensor hook and carried out the repair. STT size measured preoperatively was compared to that measured by arthroscopy and the concordance between preoperative STT size and the surgical plan was determined. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were included (mean age: 59.5 ± 8.9 years; 58.2% female). There was good concordance between STT size measured by qMRI vs. arthroscopy in the coronal plane (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.53]; Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.42 [95% CI: 0.2-0.6]; P = .0004) and in the sagittal plane (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.51 [95% CI: 0.33-0.65]; Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.38-0.71]; P < .0001). Preoperative STT size concurred with the surgical plan in 85% of patients. CONCLUSION: There was good concordance between STT size measured by qMRI and that measured perioperatively by arthroscopy. However, preoperative STT size measured by qMRI did not concur with the surgical plan in 15% of patients and in these patients the surgical procedure had to be revised during surgery.

Multiple Treatment Comparisons for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the best choice between all the options available for large and massive rotator cuff tear (mRCTs) management. OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative effectiveness of current treatment options for management of large and mRCTs. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. SETTING: We searched the Cochrane systematic reviews, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for all trials of adults with large and mRCTs that report preoperative and postoperative functional scores after an intervention option. PATIENTS: The network meta-analysis included 20 trials with 1233 patients with 37.24 months follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Eight treatment options for management of large and mRCTs were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary effectiveness outcome was the functional score. RESULTS: This meta-analysis did not show statistically significant differences between conservative, partial repair, patch or platelet rich plasma (PRP) augmentation, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and complete repair. Latissimus dorsi (LD) transfer was ranked first for effectiveness [standardized mean difference (SMD): 2.17, 0.28-4.07] and debridement ranked last (SMD: -2.15, -3.13 to -1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Latissimus dorsi transfer seems to be most effective for management of large and mRCTs, although some heterogeneity was observed in this network meta-analysis of full text reports. The choice of the operating technique depends on the patient's general health status and his expectations. When a decision has been reached to perform surgery, a repair, even if partial, should be attempted. Procedures involving biologic augmentation (eg, PRP) seem to convey no additional benefit while introducing more risk. Debridement alone should be avoided.

Surgical repair of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears seems to be a better option than patch augmentation or débridement and biceps tenotomy: a prospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective study compared the outcomes after 3 different treatments for large and massive rotator cuff tears. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of large-to-massive rotator cuff tears were prospectively included. Patients were allocated in 3 groups: (1) arthroscopic complete repair (repair group), (2) open repair and xenograft patch augmentation (patch group), and (3) arthroscopic débridement and tenotomy of the long head of the biceps (débridement group). Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the Constant-Murley score. RESULTS: The study included 32 consecutive patients. The mean improvement in the Constant-Murley score was +29.1 for the repair group (P < .01), +32.2 for the patch group (P < .01), and +20.1 for the débridement group (P < .01) at the final follow-up examination. No differences were found between the repair and patch groups, but the difference became significant between the débridement group and the patch group (P < .001) and also between the débridement group and the repair group (P < .002) at 12 months and the final follow-up. Moreover, 5 complications occurred in 11 patients in the patch group, whereas there was only 1 complication in the repair group and no complications in the débridement group. CONCLUSION: The use of porcine dermis patches to augment repairs of massive and irreparable rotator cuff tears is not recommended because there is no benefit compared with repair without augmentation and patches result in more complications.

Role of a collagen membrane in adhesion prevention strategy for complex spinal surgeries.

PURPOSE: Following lumbar spine surgery, postoperative complications can appear, including epidural adhesions. The formation of fibrosis around the dura mater can, on the one hand, lead to compression of the nerve roots with recurrent radicular pain and, on the other hand, can increase the risks of specific complications at spinal re-intervention (haematomas and dural breaches). The aim of this prospective monocentric study was to assess the safety of a new collagen antiadhesion membrane in vertebral osteotomy surgery where scar tissue and adhesions are important. METHODS: Twenty-six patients consecutively operated for lumbar posterior subtraction osteotomy with implantation of a collagen-based anti-adhesion membrane were evaluated. Membrane tolerance was evaluated at the short and midterm during the regular follow-up. RESULTS: At six months' follow-up, postoperative pain [visual analogue scale (VAS)] and disability (Oswestry Disability Index score) were significantly reduced 33.1 and 43.1%, respectively. These results were confirmed at 12-months' follow-up, with a decrease in pain of 39.9% and in disability of 49.3%. Amongst the observed postoperative complications was neither spinal fluid leak nor durotomy. Presence of the membrane was not related to complications. Two patients required further surgery for infection and nonunion at the osteotomised level. Adhesions to the dura mater were limited and thin, facilitating exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows good tolerance of the collagen based membrane for spinal osteotomy and its satisfactory use for preventing postoperative epidural adhesions. Good surgical practice associated with an anti-adhesion barrier may decrease fibrosis formation and improve postoperative functional results.