RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of an all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair technique involving muscle advancement and double-layer lasso loop (DLLL) repair for massive, retracted posterosuperior cuff tears. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients with massive, retracted posterosuperior cuff tears who underwent the all-arthroscopic muscle advancement technique from March 2017 to September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Key steps included suprascapular nerve release, advancement of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles, and DLLL repair. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale score for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, Constant score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, active range of motion, and strength were compared. Preoperative and postoperative structural radiologic characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: We evaluated 43 shoulders in 38 patients with a mean follow-up period of 18.8 months (range, 12-55 months). Of the 43 shoulders, 4 showed repair failure (9.3% retear rate). Visual analog scale, ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores significantly improved (P < .001) in patients who showed healing on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (n = 39). ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores were significantly better in the healed group, with 100% exceeding the minimal clinically important difference for the ASES score and UCLA score and 84.2%, for Constant score. A lower proportion of patients in the retear group achieved the minimal clinically important difference. Active range of motion in all planes significantly improved for patients who had healed repairs (P < .001). Relative abduction strength, supraspinatus strength, and infraspinatus strength were at least 90% of those on the contralateral side. The recovery rate of pseudoparalysis (7 patients) was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: All-arthroscopic muscle advancement, coupled with DLLL repair, leads to a high healing rate with excellent clinical outcomes and recovery of strength to at least 90%, even in patients with pseudoparalysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Component positioning affects clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, which necessitates an implantation technique that is reproducible, consistent, and reliable. This study aims to assess the accuracy and precision of positioning the humeral component in planned retroversion using a forearm referencing guide. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 54 patients (27 males and 27 females) who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or cuff tear arthropathy were evaluated. A standardized surgical technique was used to place the humeral stem in 15° of retroversion. Version was assessed intraoperatively visualizing the retroversion guide from above and referencing the forearm axis. Metal subtraction techniques from postoperative computed tomography images allowed for the generation of 3D models of the humerus and for evaluation of the humeral component position. Anatomical humeral plane and implant planes were defined and the retroversion 3D angle between identified planes was recorded for each patient. Accuracy and precision were assessed. A subgroup analysis evaluated differences between male and female patients. RESULTS: The humeral retroversion angle ranged from 0.9° to 22.8°. The majority (81%) of the measurements were less than 15°. Mean retroversion angle (±SD) was 9.9° ± 5.8° (95% CI 8.4°-11.5°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of -34% ± 38 (95% CI -23 to -44). In the male subgroup (n = 27, range 3.8°-22.5°), the mean retroversion angle was 11.9° ± 5.4° (95% CI 9.8°-14.1°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of -21% ± 36 (95% CI -6 to -35). In the female subgroup (n = 27, range 0.9°-22.8°), mean retroversion angle was 8.0° ± 5.5° (95% CI 5.8°-10.1°) and the mean percent error with respect to 15° was -47% ± 36 (95% CI -32 to -61). The differences between the 2 gender groups were statistically significant (P = .006). CONCLUSION: Referencing the forearm using an extramedullary forearm referencing system to position the humeral stem in a desired retroversion is neither accurate nor precise. There is a nonnegligible tendency to achieve a lower retroversion than planned, and the error is more marked in females.
