Extreme Medialized Repair for Challenging Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears Reveals Healing and Significant Functional Improvement.

PURPOSE: To evaluate range of motion, muscle strength, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of the extreme medialized procedure on rotator cuff tears that were initially irreparable. METHODS: From arthroscopic rotator cuff repair cases performed at our institution (June 2017 and August 2020), we retrospectively reviewed cases in which the rotator cuff was (1) unable to be withdrawn to the greater tuberosity, (2) repaired using the extreme medialized procedure, and (3) followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Patients with a history of previous surgery were excluded. Preoperative and postoperative scores were used for clinical evaluation. Imaging evaluation used 2-year postoperative magnetic resonance (MR) images. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met the criteria; mean age 68.2 ± 7.9 (range 51-82) years; mean follow-up period 26 ± 2 (24-37) months. Tear size: 45 ± 7.1 (30-70) mm in medial to lateral diameters, 40 ± 9.3 (30-60) mm in anteroposterior diameter; suture anchor number: 5.5 ± 1.2 (4-8). The visual analog scale score (50.7 to 11.8), the University of California, Los Angeles, score (12 to 31), constant score (45 to 31), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (53 to 31) at the final follow-up improved compared with preoperative values (all P < .0001). Preoperative and postoperative changes in range of motion also showed improvement in anterior elevation (107° to 151°, P < .0001), abduction (100° to 154°, P < .0001), external rotation (41° to 47°, P = .0238), and internal rotation (L1 to Th10, P < .0001). Muscle strength was also improved in abduction (from 1.9 kg to 5.0 kg, P < .0001) and external rotation (from 3.5 kg to 7.7 kg, P < .0001). MR imaging evaluation revealed 2 cases (3.1%) of retears that fell into type 4 Sugaya classification. CONCLUSIONS: Extremely medialized repair of large and massive tears not able to be repaired using conventional techniques led to improved clinical outcomes compared to preoperative conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Prevalence and predisposing factors of neuropathic pain in patients with rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: The management of pain in patients with rotator cuff tears can be challenging. Neuropathic pain is reportedly associated with pain occurrence in musculoskeletal diseases. However, to date, few studies have reported on the prevalence of neuropathic pain in patients with rotator cuff tears or identified the factors associated with neuropathic pain in a multicenter study. METHODS: A total of 391 patients (205 males and 186 females; median age, 67.7 years; range, 27-92 years) with rotator cuff tears were included in this study. The prevalence of neuropathic pain in rotator cuff tears was investigated using the Japanese version of the painDETECT questionnaire for all patients. In addition, factors significantly associated with the occurrence of neuropathic pain were examined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (7.2%) were classified into the neuropathic pain group (score ≥19), 97 (24.8%) into the uncertainty regarding neuropathy group (score 13-18), and 266 (68.0%) into the nociceptive pain group (score ≤12). According to the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of neuropathic pain were the VAS score (most severe pain during the past 4 weeks; odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.09) and UCLA shoulder score (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study findings, the prevalence of neuropathic pain in patients with rotator cuff tear was 7.2%. It is important to investigate the presence or absence of neuropathic pain when treating patients with painful rotator cuff tears, because neuropathy associated with rotator cuff tears may adversely affect patient outcomes.

Stump classification was correlated with retear in the suture-bridge and double-row repair techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

PURPOSE: The Stump classification is significantly correlated with a retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, no study has evaluated whether or not the stump classification is correlated with retear in the suture-bridge or double-row repair techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between a retear and the stump classification in the suture-bridge and double-row repair techniques. METHODS: Among 389 patients who underwent arthroscopic repairs of full-thickness rotator cuff tears using suture-bridge or double-row repair techniques, 326 patients (median age 67.0 years; range 25-85) were included. There were 51 small, 172 medium, 83 large, and 20 massive tears. Two hundred forty patients were treated with the suture-bridge technique, and 86 patients were treated with the double-row technique. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, the Cofield classification, anteroposterior and mediolateral tear size on preoperative MRI, global fatty degeneration index, and the stump classification. Cuff integrity was evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months after surgery. The patients were divided into the intact and retear groups and the relationship between the variables and retear was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The overall retear rate was 10.1%. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of a retear were the stump classification type 3 (Odds ratio: 4.71, p = 0.0246), global fatty degeneration index (Odds ratio: 3.87, p = 0.0030), and anteroposterior tear size (Odds ratio: 1.07, p = 0.0077) in the suture bridge technique. In the double-row technique, the independent predictors of retear were stump classification type 3 (Odds ratio: 7.82, p = 0.0348), and age (Odds ratio: 1.22, p = 0.0163). CONCLUSION: The stump classification was significantly correlated with retear in the suture-bridge and double-row repair technique. Stump classification type 3 was indicated to be an important risk factor for predicting retear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.