Different types of rotator cuff tear morphology do not affect post-repair clinical outcomes in large to massive tears.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this current study is to evaluate the effects of rotator cuff tear morphology on clinical outcomes in large to massive tears, using a modified version of the existing classification system, with specific focus on tear symmetry and use of margin convergence. METHODS: Patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of large to massive, full thickness rotator cuff tears were retrospectively analysed. The tear pattern was classified at the time of surgery as Type IA, Type IB, Type IIA, and Type IIB according to tear symmetry and direction of maximum tear diameter, with Type I being symmetrical and Type II being asymmetrical. Type IA (U-shaped) had greater mediolateral (ML) than anteroposterior (AP) diameter while Type IB (crescent shaped) had greater AP than ML diameter. Type IIA tears have an anterior extension towards the rotator interval while IIB tears have a posterior extension into the infraspinatus, similar to AP L-shaped tears established in the literature. Type I tears were typically repaired from medial to lateral while Type II tears were repaired diagonally. All types were repaired using double row technique, with the addition of margin convergence for Types IA and IIB, which had larger tears in the medial and lateral directions. Primary outcome measures were Oxford Shoulder Score, Constant Shoulder Score, University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Score followed-up at 6, 12, and 24-months as well as retear rates at latest follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 65.5 â€‹± â€‹9.4. The prevalence of each tear morphologies from Type IA to IIB was 22.0 â€‹%, 34.9 â€‹%, 27.5 â€‹%, and 15.6 â€‹%, respectively. All four groups showed statistically significant improvement from pre-operative scores in all 3 outcome measures at 24 months (p â€‹< â€‹0.001 for all). No significant difference in primary outcome measures or retear rates was detected between all 4 groups. CONCLUSION: This study found that different types of cuff tear morphology, despite affecting surgical repair technique, does not influence clinical outcomes post-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at mid-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort study, Level III.

Surgery for liver metastases from primary breast cancer: A reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the outcomes of standard-of-care palliative treatment for BCLM remain poor. Recent literature has shown promising results of hepatic resection, however, not all studies concur. Given the lack of standardized international guidelines in this field, the aim of this study is to provide gold-standard evidence for breast cancer liver metastases (BCLM) through a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Four databases were searched for articles comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment for BCLM. One-stage meta-analysis was performed using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with plot digitizer software. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints. RESULTS: Four propensity-score matched (PSM) studies involving 205 surgical and 291 non-surgical patients for BCLM were included. There was a significant difference between both groups for overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.32-0.51). Sensitivity analyses for hormone receptor status of breast cancer (HR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.55) and type of resection performed (HR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.33-0.61) yielded HRs in favor of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis concludes that surgery offers superior OS outcomes, compared to non-surgery, in a select group of patients. Future randomized controlled trials and PSM studies are warranted, using this study as a point of reference for similar parameters.

Non-selective NSAIDs do not increase retear rates post-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) are known to be associated with substantial pain and post-operative pain management is critical in overall patients' outcomes. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used oral medications and can reduce opioid usage. However, controversies arise due to its postulated effect on postoperative tendon healing. As the evidence of safety and efficacy of NSAIDs remains unclear, this study aims to investigate the effect of NSAIDs on retear rates and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted, identifying studies that compared cohorts with post-RCR NSAIDs use versus control groups without NSAID use. Meta-analysis was conducted for retear rate as well as pain and functional outcomes (Visual Analogue Scale and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder score). Subgroup analysis was conducted for retear rates to determine the overall treatment effect of including selective COX-2 inhibitors. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The total baseline cohort size was 916, with 443 (48.3%) patients in the NSAID group and 473 (51.6%) patients in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Meta-analysis between the two groups showed that there were no statistically significant differences in retear rates (p â€‹= â€‹0.70), early and late post-operative Visual Analogue Scale score (p â€‹= â€‹0.10 and p â€‹= â€‹0.10, respectively) and latest American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder score (p â€‹= â€‹0.31). However, subgroup analysis of retear rates revealed a statistically significant difference between the subgroup including COX-2 selective inhibitor versus non-selective COX inhibitor (p â€‹< â€‹0.01). CONCLUSION: NSAID use in post-arthroscopic RCR pain relief does not increase retear rates and can provide similar clinical outcomes compared to a non-NSAID regimen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis, level of evidence, 4.