Functional outcome of arthroscopic repair with concomitant manipulation in rotator cuff tears with stiff shoulder

Early Postoperative Stiffness After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Correlates With Improved Tendon Healing

PURPOSE

To assess whether early postoperative stiffness predicts long-term stiffness and its relationship with repair integrity in patients who undergo arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study; 427 patients undergoing primary ARCR by a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon over 4 years were considered. Patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were categorized into stiff and non-stiff groups based on their range of motion (ROM) at 3 months' postoperatively. Stiffness was defined as passive forward flexion <120°, external rotation <30°, or internal rotation below L3. We evaluated clinical outcomes using demographics, ROM, Constant Shoulder (CS) score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months' postoperatively. Stiffness, retear rates, and tendon integrity were assessed via magnetic resonance imaging at 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 155 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 68 (43.9%) were stiff, and 87 (56.1%) were non-stiff. The stiff group had significantly lower preoperative CS and UCLA scores (P = .013/.014) and greater VAS score (P = .034). At 3 months, this group showed lower ROM and functional scores (P < .001), persisting at 6 and 12 months (except internal rotation) (P < .001). Their 12-month VAS score was greater (P = .024). Postoperative stiffness occurred in 10.3% of the stiff group and 2.3% of the non-stiff group (P = .035). The 12-month retear rate was 5.9% in the stiff group and 17.2% in the non-stiff group (P = .032). Minimal clinically important difference analysis indicated ROM changes but limited functional score changes in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that early postoperative shoulder stiffness correlates with lower preoperative functional scores and greater pain levels. Shoulder stiffness at 3 months' post-ARCR predicts 12-month shoulder stiffness but indicates better tendon integrity. While early stiffness is linked to lower functional scores and more pain, its long-term clinical impact seems limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparison study.

Long-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair using the single anchor tension band technique - Minimum 5-years follow-up

Background

The primary aim of this study was to assess the long-term patient reported outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff tear (ARCR) using a single anchor tension band (TB) technique for small and medium supraspinatus tears at minimum 5-years follow-up.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive ARCRs of small and medium supraspinatus tears using a knotless single anchor TB technique with minimum 5-year follow-up was carried out. Outcomes of interest included: range of motion (ROM) on examination under anaesthesia (EUA), visual analogue scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Short-Form (SF-12).

Results

From 243 consecutive ARCR procedures, 82 patients with a mean age of 55 ± 9.5 years met the inclusion criteria at 6.7 ± 1.5 years follow-up. There were significant improvements in VAS (5.5 ± 2.2 vs. 0.7 ± 1.5), ASES (47.6 ± 16.8 vs. 92.8 ± 13.0), OSS (31.3 ± 7.2 vs. 45.3 ± 3.5) and SF-12 (37.6 ± 7.6 vs. 50.3 ± 7.7) post-operatively (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The single anchor TB ARCR technique has excellent patient reported outcomes at a minimum of 5 years and is suitable for supraspinatus tears smaller than 20 mm in the sagittal plane.

Level of evidence

Level IV; Consecutive Case Series.

One-stage rotator cuff repair in stiff shoulders shows comparable range of motion, clinical outcome and retear rates to non-stiff shoulders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

One-stage treatment involving rotator cuff repair and shoulder capsule release is mainly used to treat patients with rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and concomitant shoulder stiffness. Despite the increasing attention to the efficacy and safety of one-stage treatment, controversy still remains. Therefore, this systematic review aims to summarize the indications, operation procedure and rehabilitation protocol, and compare the range of motions (ROMs), functional outcomes and retear rates of one-stage treatment for RCTs in stiff shoulders and non-stiff shoulders.

METHODS

Multiple databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE) were searched for studies that investigated outcomes after one-stage treatment for RCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness compared with rotator cuff repair for RCTs alone, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Descriptive statistics, including range of motion, patient-reported outcome and retear rate, are presented without meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity and low levels of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 9 cohort studies were included, with 305 patients treated with one-stage treatment involving rotator cuff repair and simultaneous shoulder capsular release and 1059 patients treated with rotator cuff repair alone. Patients in both groups had significant symptom improvement and functional recovery after the one-stage treatment for the stiffness group and standard repair for the non-stiffness group, and most patients could return to normal life and work within 6 months after the operation. The retear rate in the one-stage treatment group was not higher than that in the rotator cuff repair group. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed in terms of range of motion and patient-reported outcomes in the vast majority of studies at the final follow-up, including the visual analog scale for pain, the Constant score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Score, the Oxford shoulder score and the Simple Shoulder Test.

CONCLUSION

One-stage treatment for RCTs in stiff shoulders provides comparable ROM and patient-reported clinical outcomes as rotator cuff repair for non-stiff RCTs. In addition, the rate of postoperative retear in stiff shoulder treated with one-stage treatment was not higher than in non-stiff shoulders.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Shoulder Stiffness With Rotator Cuff Repair Yields Similar Outcomes to Isolated Rotator Cuff Repair

Purpose

To compare patient-reported and surgical outcome measures in patients with and without secondary shoulder stiffness (SSS) undergoing rotator cuff repair (RCR).

Methods

Patients undergoing rotator cuff repair from 2014 to 2020 with complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by the short-form 12 survey (SF-12) were retrospectively reviewed to identify if operative intervention for SSS was performed alongside the RCR. Those patients with operative intervention for SSS were propensity matched to a group without prior intervention for stiffness by age, sex, laterality, body mass index, diabetes mellitus status, and the presence of a thyroid disorder. The groups were compared by rotator cuff tear (RCT) size, surgical outcomes, further surgical intervention, rotator cuff retear rate, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and SF-12 results at 1 year after surgery. Delta values were calculated for component scores of the SF-12 and ROM values by subtracting the preoperative result from the postoperative result.

Results

A total of 89 patients with SSS were compared to 156 patients in the control group at final analysis. The patients in the SSS group experienced a significant improvement in the delta mental health component score (MCS-12) of the SF-12 survey that was not seen in the control group (P = .005 to P = .539). Both groups experienced significant improvement by the delta physical health component score (PCS-12) of the SF-12 survey (SSS: 7.68; P < .001; control: 6.95; P < .001). The SSS group also experienced greater improvement of their forward flexion (25.8° vs 12.9°; P = .005) and external rotation (7.13° vs 1.65°; P = .031) ROM than the control group.

Conclusions

Operative intervention of SSS at the time of RCR has equivalent postoperative SF-12 survey outcome scores when compared to patients undergoing RCR without preoperative stiffness despite those patients having lower preoperative scores.

Level of Evidence

Level III retrospective comparative study.

Preemptive middle glenohumeral ligament release in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not reduce the postoperative stiffness: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preemptive middle glenohumeral ligament (MGHL) release in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) to reduce postoperative stiffness.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ARCR were enrolled and allocated into two groups retrospectively: the preemptive MGHL release group (n = 44) and the preemptive MGHL non-release group (n = 42). Clinical outcomes were assessed and compared between the two groups, including the range of motion, Japanese Orthopedic Association Shoulder Score, Constant Shoulder Score, and the University of California, Los Angeles Score preoperatively and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively and complications. The integrity of the repaired tendon was assessed at the 12-month follow-up using magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in all range of motion and all functional scores at any of the assessed time points. There was also no significant difference in the healing failure rate 2.3% in the preemptive MGHL group and 2.4% in the preemptive MGHL non-release group (p = .97), and postoperative stiffness was 2.3% in the preemptive MGHL group and 7.1% in the preemptive MGHL non-release group (p = .28). There was no postoperative instability in both group.

CONCLUSION

ARCR effectively facilitates the recovery of range of motion and function in patients with a rotator cuff tear. However, preemptive MGHL release could not be an effective method to reduce postoperative stiffness.

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair, Manipulation Under Anesthesia, and Capsular Release for Concurrent Rotator Cuff Tear and Adhesive Capsulitis Maintain Improvements in Outcomes and Range of Motion at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Purpose

To characterize the outcomes and range of motion at a minimum 5-year follow-up in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) with simultaneous manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and capsular release (CR) for concurrent RC and adhesive capsulitis and to compare active range of motion of the operative and nonoperative shoulder.

Methods

Patients undergoing ARCR with MUA and CR by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed and prospectively evaluated at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Standardized surveys, examinations, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded pre- and postoperatively. Outcome measures included range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Score (ASES), visual analog score (VAS) for pain, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), subjective shoulder value (SSV), functional level, and satisfaction.

Results

Fourteen consecutive patients were evaluated at 7.5 ± 1.6 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the affected shoulder had substantial improvements in ASES (P < .001), VAS (P < .001), SST (P = .001), and SSV (P < .001), with similar ASES, VAS, SST, and SSV compared with the contralateral side. Range of motion was also similar to the contralateral side at final follow-up for forward elevation and internal rotation, but external rotation was noted to be 10.77 ± 17.06° (95% confidence interval 0.46-21.08, P = .042) more limited. Two patients (14%) underwent revision MUA and CR for stiffness at 6 months and 12 months' postoperatively.

Conclusions

This study highlights significantly improved and maintained patient-reported outcomes and range of motion at minimum 5-year follow-up in patients undergoing concomitant ARCR, MUA, and CR. These results provide further evidence that preoperative stiffness in the setting of rotator cuff tear can be managed concurrently; however, patients may remain at an increased risk for recurrent stiffness and external rotation loss.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Sex Is Associated with the Success or Failure of Manipulation Alone for Joint Stiffness Associated with Rotator Cuff Repair

Purpose: One-stage arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation has been recently performed for rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness, whereas some patients require capsular release due to severe stiffness that is difficult to treat with manipulation. The purpose of this study was to analyze patient backgrounds and related factors of success or failure of manipulation alone for the treatment of shoulder stiffness associated with rotator cuff tears. Methods: This study included 64 patients with rotator cuff tears and shoulder stiffness who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation alone or with manipulation and capsular release of the glenohumeral joint at our institution between January 2015 and September 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: those whose shoulder stiffness could be improved by manipulation alone (Manipulation group) and those whose stiffness could not be improved by manipulation alone and required capsular release (Capsular release addition group). Analysis was performed between the two groups regarding patient backgrounds and related factors, including rotator cuff tear morphology and range of motions pre- and postoperatively. Results: Exactly 45 patients and 19 patients were included in Manipulation group and Capsular release addition group, respectively. A comparison between the two groups showed that patient age (p = 0.0040), sex (p = 0.0005), and injury due to trauma (p = 0.0018) were significantly related to the success or failure of manipulation alone. Multivariate logistic regression analysis on these three factors showed that sex (odds ratio, 5.5; p = 0.048) was significantly associated with the success or failure of manipulation alone. In both groups, the passive ROM of all patients improved at the last postoperative follow-up compared to their pre-operative values (p < 0.001), except for internal rotation in the Capsular release addition group (p = 0.49). Conclusion: Young male patients who have shoulder stiffness associated with rotator cuff tears should be considered for arthroscopic capsular release rather than manipulation.

Comparison of Gene Expression of Inflammation- and Fibrosis-Related Factors Between the Anterior and Posterior Capsule in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tear and Shoulder Stiffness

Background

Arthroscopic capsular release is an effective treatment for refractory shoulder stiffness, yet there are no basic studies that can explain the extent of the release.

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the genetic expression of inflammation- and fibrosis-related factors between the anterior and posterior capsules in patients with shoulder stiffness and rotator cuff tear.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

Enrolled in this study were 35 patients who underwent arthroscopic capsular release for shoulder stiffness along with the rotator cuff repair. Anterior and posterior glenohumeral joint capsular tissues were obtained during the capsular release. For the control tissue, anterior capsule was obtained from 40 patients without stiffness who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The gene expression of collagen types I and III, fibronectin, extracellular matrix, basic fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factor-β, connective tissue growth factor, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, MMP-2, MMP-9, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, TIMP-2, intercellular adhesion molecule 1, interleukin 1, and tumor necrotizing factor-α were analyzed using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Differences in gene expression between the anterior capsule, the posterior capsule, and the control tissue were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

The expression levels of collagen types I and III were significantly higher in the anterior capsule with stiffness com (pared with both the posterior capsule with stiffness (P = .010 for both) and the control (P = .038 and .010, respectively). The levels of fibronectin, MMP-2, and MMP-9 in the anterior capsule were significantly higher than in both the posterior capsule (P = .013, .003, and .006, respectively) and the control (P = .014, .003, and .005, respectively).

Conclusion

Genetic analysis of the shoulder capsule revealed that more fibrogenic processes occur in the anterior capsule compared with the posterior capsule in patients with shoulder stiffness.

Clinical Relevance

Capsular release for shoulder stiffness should be more focused on the anterior capsule than on the posterior capsule.

Prediction of Shoulder Stiffness After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

BACKGROUND

Postoperative shoulder stiffness (POSS) is a prevalent adverse event after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) that is associated with major limitations in everyday activities and prolonged rehabilitation.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to develop a predictive model for determining the risk of POSS within 6 months after primary ARCR. We hypothesized that sufficient discrimination ability of such a model could be achieved using a local institutional database.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Consecutive primary ARCRs documented in a local clinical registry between 2013 and 2017 were included, and patients who experienced POSS before the final clinical 6-month follow-up were identified. A total of 29 prognostic factor candidates were considered, including patient-related factors (n = 7), disease-related factors (n = 9), rotator cuff integrity factors (n = 6), and operative details (n = 7). We used imputed data for the primary analysis, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted using complete case data. Logistic regression was applied to develop a model based on clinical relevance and statistical criteria. To avoid overfitting in the multivariable model, highly correlated predictors were not included together in any model. A final prognostic model with a maximum of 8 prognostic factors was considered. The model's predictive accuracy was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Of 1330 ARCR cases (N = 1330 patients), 112 (8.4%) patients had POSS. Our final model had a moderate predictive ability with an AUC of 0.67. The predicted risks of POSS ranged from 2.3% to 38.9% and were significantly higher in women; patients with partial tears, low baseline passive shoulder abduction, and lack of tendon degeneration; and when no acromioplasty was performed.

CONCLUSION

A prognostic model for POSS was developed for patients with ARCR, offering a personalized risk evaluation to support the future decision process for surgery and rehabilitation.

Editorial Commentary: Concomitant Surgical Management for Rotator Cuff Tears With Adhesive Capsulitis is an Effective Treatment for Managing a Vexing Problem

Rotator cuff tears (RCT) with concomitant frozen shoulder is a challenging clinical scenario that I, along with many other shoulder surgeons, commonly encounter. Some controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment. Does one address the shoulder stiffness first and regain range of motion (ROM) via nonoperative or operative means, then treat the rotator cuff tear later, or should it all be done at the same time surgically via a concomitant arthroscopic capsular release with or without manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) followed by a rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the same setting? I believe there is overwhelming evidence in the literature to support the latter. Address both pathologies concomitantly through a single stage surgery! In the setting of the RCT with adhesive capsulitis, I routinely recommend early concomitant arthroscopic capsular release with gentle MUA and then perform an arthroscopic RCR in one stage. This is then followed by an accelerated postoperative protocol which is balanced with some protection for healing. We have reported excellent outcomes with this approach. Similarly, I have found this approach to be highly effective, reproducible, and efficient, with high patient satisfaction and outcomes comparable to my patients who undergo arthroscopic RCR without stiff shoulders.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in Stiff Shoulders are Comparable to Non-Stiff Shoulders When Combined With Manipulation Under Anesthesia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) in patients with preoperative stiffness to those without.

METHODS

A total of 135 patients were prospectively evaluated for 2 years after ARCR for small to medium sized rotator cuff tears at our institution. Patients were divided into stiff (<100° of passive forward flexion) and non-stiff cohorts. The stiff group underwent manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) before ARCR was performed. Outcomes were measured using visual analog scale (VAS), Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) recorded at the preoperative, 6- , 12-, and 24-month time points. The results of ARCR between the cohorts were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 123 out of 135 patients (91.1%) completed the follow-up (stiff n = 46, non-stiff n = 77). There were significant improvements in the mean CSS scores at 6 (mean, 59.87; P < .001) and 12 months (mean, 65.88; P = .021) in the stiff group. There were no significant differences detectable in the CSS and OSS scores between the stiff and non-stiff groups at 6, 12, and 24 months. However, the percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference was significantly higher in the stiff group (97.8%) compared with the non-stiff group (75.3%; P = .001). The VAS scores, forward flexion, and strength in both groups were found to be comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study showed no significant differences in outcomes scores in patients with stiff shoulders who underwent MUA combined with ARCR compared with patients with non-stiff shoulders who underwent ARCR alone. Therefore, early surgical repair should be considered in patients with rotator cuff tears and concomitant shoulder stiffness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

Is single stage capsular release and rotator cuff repair suitable for rotator tears with concomitant stiffness?

Introduction

It is common for patients with a rotator cuff tear to present with shoulder stiffness. There is no consensus on the acceptable level of stiffness at time of rotator cuff repair.We aim to determine if patients with stiffness undergoing rotator cuff repair and concomitant capsular release have different outcome than those with no stiffness undergoing rotator cuff repair alone. We hypothesize that patients with stiffness will not have poorer outcome than patients with no stiffness.

Method

We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data for 47 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair under a single surgeon from 2010 to 2015. 25 patients were considered stiff (Stiff group) and 22 patients were considered to have no pre-operative stiffness (Non-stiff group).Range of motion and functional outcomes were collected preoperatively and post-operatively at two-years.

Results

There were no significant differences in gender distribution, age and cuff tear size between both groups. Pre-operatively, patients in the Stiff group had significantly poorer active range of motion (Forward flexion - Stiff 74.8° vs Non-stiff 100.2°, P = 0.001) and poorer function (Constant score - Stiff 23.5 vs Non-stiff 43.2, P < 0.001). Post-operatively, both groups of patients had increased range of motion, strength and reported lesser pain compared to pre-operation. There were no significant differences in post-operative outcomes between both groups.

Conclusion

Single-stage surgery combining capsular release and rotator cuff repair is effective for patients with stiffness as they are able to achieve similar results to those without shoulder stiffness.

Functional outcome of single stage capsular release and rotator cuff repair for cuff tear in periarthritic shoulder

Rotator cuff tear and periarthritic shoulder is a concomitant condition. In this study, both were managed with single stage arthroscopic Capsular release and rotator cuff repair and its functional outcome was evaluated till one year postoperatively. 58 patients diagnosed clinically, radiologically by MRI and arthroscopically were included. Mean constant shoulder score preoperatively was 32.6 and at one year postoperatively 78.5. Mean SPADI preoperatively was 72.1% which decreased to 20.7% at one year postoperatively. These improvements were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Thus this single stage procedure is effective for patients having rotator cuff tear in periarthritic shoulder.

What is the optimal surgical intervention for patients with frozen shoulder and a concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tear?

Background

Patients with recalcitrant frozen shoulder traditionally undergo arthroscopic capsular release. Some patients may have a concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tear (PTT). There is limited evidence if these PTT require repair at the same setting. We aim to compare if patients undergoing concomitant rotator cuff repair do better than patients undergoing capsular release alone. Secondarily, we aim to determine if outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release differ for patients with and without PTT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients with frozen shoulders undergoing arthroscopic capsular release between 2012 and 2016 was performed. Patients with partial-thickness tears and patients without rotator cuff tears were included. Clinical outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months after operation.

Results

There were 33 patients with PTT—15 underwent capsular release without repair (CR group), whereas 18 underwent capsular release with rotator cuff repair (RCR group). A total of 62 control patients without rotator cuff tears (No Tear) underwent arthroscopic capsular release only. For patients with PTT, there were no significant differences in preoperative demographics and function between the CR and RCR group. The CR group had significantly worse preoperative pain. At 1-year follow-up, the RCR group had significantly better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function than the CR group. For patients undergoing capsular release only, the No Tear group had better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function at 1 year compared with the CR group.

Conclusion

Patients with a stiff, frozen shoulder and concomitant PTT do benefit from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with capsular release. The benefit is evident at 1-year follow-up.

Rotator cuff tear with joint stiffness: a review of current treatment and rehabilitation

Repair of the rotator cuff tear is a joint-tightening procedure that can worsen joint stiffness. This paradoxical phenomenon complicates treatment of rotator cuff tear with joint stiffness. As a result, there is controversy about how and when to treat joint stiffness. As many treatments have been published, this review discusses the latest findings on treatment of rotator cuff tear with joint stiffness.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between rotator cuff repair with and without rotator interval capsular release for rotator cuff tears to prevent and improve postoperative stiffness: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A common complication of rotator cuff (RC) repair is a postoperative stiffness. Postoperative stiffness may develop and lead to inferior functional outcomes. Rotator cuff repair with additional rotator interval (RI) capsular release can be done to prevent postoperative stiffness in rotator cuff tears. However, routine rotator interval capsular release in rotator cuff repair is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness.

METHOD

We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (VAS, CS, ASES, complications and ROM at 3, 6 and 12 months) of RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness from PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to the February 1, 2020.

RESULTS

Seven of 255 studies (six comparative studies and one RCT) (N = 803 patients) were eligible; 2 and 5 studies were included in the pooling of RC repair and RI release without concomitant stiffness and stiffness, respectively; 2, 6, 3, 6, 3, 5, 7, 7, and 7 studies were included in pooling of VAS, CS, ASES at 6 and 12 months and range of motion (internal, external rotation and forward flexion) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The UMD of VAS, CS and ASES scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up for the RC repair and RI release group was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.90), 0.93 (-1.70, 3.56), -2.27 (-5.30, 0.76), -0.04 (-0.24, 0.15), 1.66 (0.77, 2.55) and 1.58 (0.21, 2.96) scores when compared to RC repair alone with and without concomitant stiffness. In terms of ROM, forward flexion for the RC repair and RI release group was -4.60 (-10.61, 1.41), -7.11 (-15.47, 1.25) and -0.70 (-2.51, -1.11) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For external rotation, RC repair and RI release were -0.12 (-8.27, 8.03), -3.98 (-12.09, 4.14) and -2.65 (-5.35, 0.04) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For internal rotation in RC repair and RI release, the values were -1.22 (-1.97, - 0.48), -1.01 (-1.79, -0.23) and -0.19 (-1.13, 0.74) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. There were no differences with a RR of 0.92 (0.46, 1.84) between the two groups in terms of complications. After subgroup analysis, RC repair with RI release had no clinically significant differences for pain, function and ROM when compared to RC repair alone in RC tear patients with and without preoperative stiffness.

CONCLUSIONS

RC repair with RI release in patients with and without preoperative stiffness had no statistically significant differences for pain, function (CS and ASES) and range of motion (FF, ER and IR) when compared to RC repair alone in RC injury patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Glenohumeral synovitis score predicts early shoulder stiffness following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Background

This study was conducted to determine if there is an association between an intraoperative glenohumeral synovitis score (GHSS) and postoperative shoulder stiffness in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).

Methods

Intraoperative GHSS was collected retrospectively from standardized arthroscopic images on consecutive patients undergoing primary ARCR. Range of motion was collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 6 months.

Results

290 consecutive patients underwent primary ARCR. At three-months follow-up, 32 (11.0%) patients had glenohumeral stiffness. Patients with stiffness had significantly higher mean GHSS.

Conclusion

Higher intraoperative GHSS was associated with early postoperative shoulder stiffness at three-months after ARCR.

The effect of concomitant coracohumeral ligament release in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair to prevent postoperative stiffness: a retrospective comparative study

PURPOSE

This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coracohumeral ligament (CHL) release from the coracoid process concomitant with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for preventing postoperative stiffness.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were collected retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-1) was performed between a no-releasing group (Group I) and CHL-releasing group (Group II). In total, 76 patients in each group were matched. Clinical outcomes were assessed and compared between the two groups, including range of motion (ROM) and visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. The integrity of the repaired tendon was assessed at 1-year follow-up using either magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography.

RESULTS

External rotation (ER) at side at postoperative 3 months in Group II was better than that in Group I (48.6° ± 11.6° vs. 38.4° ± 13.0°, P < 0.001). When evaluating only patients with a small-to-medium sized tear at postoperative 3 months, ER at side was 49.8° ± 10.9° in Group II versus 37.8° ± 13.1° in Group I (P < 0.001). In patients with a large-to-massive sized tear, however, there was no significant difference in ER at side at postoperative 3 months (n.s.). There was no significant difference in ROM and functional scores at postoperative 6 months and 1 year, and there was no significant difference in healing failure rate (6 cases in Group I (7.9%), 2 cases in Group II (2.6%); n.s.). No complications of the CHL release procedure occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, CHL release from the coracoid process without creating a rotator interval defect could be an effective and safe method to prevent early postoperative stiffness, especially ER at side in patients with a small-to-medium sized tear. Therefore, CHL release can be used as a selective procedure to prevent postoperative stiffness in patients that may benefit from this procedure with decreased preoperative ER compared to the normal side.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Metabolic profiling of serum and tissue from the rotator interval and anterior capsule in shoulder stiffness: a preliminary study

Background

Using mass spectrometry, we evaluated the metabolic profiles of patients who had rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness, or shoulder stiffness only, and compared these with samples from a control group.

Methods

This study enrolled 28 patients, including 10 patients with shoulder stiffness only (group I), nine patients with rotator cuff tear and stiffness (group II), and nine controls selected from patients diagnosed with impingement syndrome or long head of the biceps lesions without evident limitation of joint motion or rotator cuff tears. Serum and tissue from the rotator interval and anterior capsule were collected. In all, 82 samples were analyzed for metabolite profiling using the AbsoluteIDQ™p180 Kit.

Results

Comparison of 186 metabolites revealed that groups I and II had significantly higher concentrations of sphingolipids in serum (SM C24:1; group I = 65.16 μm, group II = 68.07 μm) than controls (55.37 μm, p = 0.005 & 0.015, respectively). Higher concentrations of sphingolipids were also present in the rotator interval tissue (SM C22:3) of groups 1 (0.0197 μm) and 2 (0.0144 μm) than controls (0.0081 μm, p = 0.012 & 0.014, respectively). The concentration of glycerophospholipid (PC aa C30:0) was higher in the anterior capsule tissue of groups I (0.850 μm) and II (1.164 μm) than controls (0.572 μm; p = 0.007) Total cholesterol was positively correlated with sphingolipid concentration in serum (SM C24:1, rho = 0.782, p = 0.008) and rotator interval tissue (SM C22:3, rho = 0.750, p = 0.017). There was no significant difference in the metabolites evaluated in groups I and II.

Conclusion

Metabolic profiling showed that levels of lipid-related metabolites were increased in the anterior capsule tissue and rotator interval tissue of patients with shoulder stiffness. Sphingomyelin (SM C22:3) in the tissue of the rotator interval was positively correlated with the serum level of total cholesterol in patients with shoulder stiffness only. The level of glycerophospholipid (PC30:0) in the anterior capsule was positively correlated with the serum level of total cholesterol in patients who had rotator cuff tear with shoulder stiffness. The results indicate that serum total cholesterol may be related to shoulder stiffness. Future studies are needed to evaluate the role of serum cholesterol in the pathogenesis of shoulder stiffness.

Trial registration

KC12OISI0532. Registered Nov 15, 2012. approval by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea.

Comparison of one-stage versus two-stage procedure for the management of patients with rotator cuff tear and concomitant shoulder stiffness

Background

To compare the clinical outcomes of one-stage and two-stage procedures for the management of patients with rotator cuff tear and concomitant shoulder stiffness.

Methods

From December 2013 to June 2016, we recruited 42 consecutive patients with rotator cuff tear and concomitant shoulder stiffness. Twenty-two patients underwent a one-stage procedure, including arthroscopic capsule release and concomitant rotator cuff repair, within 2 weeks of the diagnosis. For the remaining twenty patients, conservative treatment for the recovery of range of motion (ROM) was initially performed before arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The ROM, visual analogue scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley score, and satisfaction rate were assessed preoperatively; 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery; and at final follow-up.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 26.3 months (range, 24–33 months). No significant difference was noted in preoperative demographic data (age, sex, dominant/non-dominant, diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease, and duration of symptoms) between the two groups (P = 0.165, P = 0.580, P = 0.662, P = 0.716, P = 0.231, and P = 0.152, respectively). After treatment, all patients exhibited significant improvement in ROM and functional scores (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). At 3 months postoperatively, the two-stage group exhibited significantly improved forward flexion and internal rotation compared with the one-stage group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.038, respectively). No significant difference in ROM was noted between the two groups at 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively and the final follow-up. In addition, no significant differences in VAS, ASES, Constant-Murley score and satisfaction rate were noted between the two groups at final follow-up (P = 0.319, P = 0.529, P = 0.711, and P = 0.085, respectively).

Conclusion

In the treatment of rotator cuff tear with concomitant stiffness, although the recovery of ROM took longer in patients who underwent the one-stage procedure, satisfactory results at final follow-up can be achieved using either the one-stage procedure or two-stage procedure.

Study design

Case-control study.

When Do Patients Return to Previous Daily Activity After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

BACKGROUND

One potential advantage of arthroscopic shoulder surgery over open approaches is accelerated recovery; however, the functional recovery period of daily activities for specific movements after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has not yet been reported, to our knowledge.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) After arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, when are patients able to perform low-level and high-level front-of-body motion, low-level and high-level behind-the-back motion, strength-related activities, and sports/leisure activities? (2) How do tear size, arm dominance, and retear affect performance of these activities? (3) When does the UCLA score cross above 80% in each UCLA score component (28 points)?

METHODS

A 2-year prospective study of 135 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was performed (45 in small-sized, 45 in medium-sized, and 45 in large-to-massive-sized groups). The mean age was 60 years. Thirty-one and 104 shoulders were nondominant and dominant shoulders, respectively. Twenty-seven shoulders showed retear on MRI taken 9 months after surgery. We evaluated the functional recovery periods using the questionnaire and the UCLA scores and assessed influencing factors such as tear size, arm dominance, and retear. The patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 months after surgery. The questionnaire evaluated front-of-the-body, behind-the-back, general, simple strength-related, and sports/leisure activities. Based on the UCLA evaluation, the functional recovery period was defined as the time required to achieve a score > 80% in each UCLA score component.

RESULTS

Patients experienced recovery of low-level and high-level ROM front-of-the-body, high-level ROM behind-the-back, simple strength-related, and sports/leisure activities within 2 ± 1, 3 ± 2, 9 ± 0, 10 ± 2, and 14 ± 3 months, respectively, after surgery. Two patients with large-to-massive tears did not gain the recovery of high-level ROM behind-the-back, simple strength-related, and sports/leisure activities. Patients with large-to-massive tears were delayed from some activities compared with patients with small tears (10 ± 0 versus 7 ± 1 for washing back, p = 0.010; 11 ± 0 versus 10 ± 0 for lifting 5 kg, p = 0.020; 15 ± 0 versus 13 ± 0 for sports/leisure). Arm dominance was not associated with functional recovery. Patients with retears, compared with intact healing, had a longer time to return to washing hair (3 ± 2 versus 3 ± 1, p = 0.007), combing (4 ± 3 versus 2 ± 1, p = 0.002), washing the back (10 ± 3 versus 8 ± 3, p = 0.034), and sports/leisure (15 ± 3 versus 14 ± 3, p = 0.010). UCLA score in 134 patients reached 28 points, corresponding to the functional recovery period at 6 ± 3 months. One patient did not reach > 28 points on the UCLA score.

CONCLUSIONS

It took patients an average of 14 months to recover their daily motion after surgery. Tear size and retear affected only the recovery period of high-level motion activities and sports/leisure. This study was believed to serve as a guideline to inform patients about functional recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Editorial Commentary: "Doctor, Are You Sure the Steroid Injection Won't Harm My Shoulder?" Perhaps We Should Stop Injecting Corticosteroids and Just Repair Those Rotator Cuffs

Analysis of insurance records indicates that 2 or more corticosteroid injections before rotator cuff repair could triple the odds of revision. The cause-and-effect relationship cannot be ascertained because it remains unclear whether steroids worsen outcomes or are injected in shoulders that are worse to start with. Registry studies cannot adjust for lesional determinants of prognosis and should be interpreted with caution to avoid depriving patients from safe and simple treatments to delay or circumvent surgery. The risks of corticosteroids could be mitigated using radiographically guided infiltration and, ultimately, by rapid surgical repair in young patients before the advent of fatty infiltration and tendon retraction.

A Rotator Cuff Tear Concomitant With Shoulder Stiffness Is Associated With a Lower Retear Rate After 1-Stage Arthroscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported on the radiological characteristics and repair integrity of coexistent rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and shoulder stiffness after simultaneous arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and capsular release.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the radiological characteristics and repair integrity of 1-stage arthroscopic surgery of RCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness RCTs, the stiff group underwent simultaneous capsular release for shoulder stiffness, and the nonstiff group had no stiffness. Symptom duration, prevalence of diabetes, tear size, tendon involvement (type 1, supraspinatus; type 2, supraspinatus and subscapularis; and type 3, supraspinatus and infraspinatus; type 4, supraspinatus, subscapularis, and infraspinatus), and fatty infiltration (Goutallier stages 0-4) were evaluated. A retear was appraised using magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical outcomes were assessed using range of motion, the Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score.

RESULTS

The stiff group showed a significantly lower retear rate (1/39, 2.6%) than the nonstiff group (47/320, 14.7%) ( P = .043). There were significant differences in symptom duration (7.4 ± 6.6 vs 15.0 ± 23.7 months, respectively; P < .001), mediolateral tear size (18.9 ± 8.9 vs 24.1 ± 12.0 mm, respectively; P = .002), tendon involvement (94.9%, 5.1%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 85.3%, 6.9%, 7.8%, and 0.0%, respectively; P = .048), and fatty infiltration of the subscapularis (66.7%, 33.3%, 0.0%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 31.9%, 61.3%, 5.6%, 1.3%, and 0.0%, respectively; P < .001) and teres minor (74.4%, 20.5%, 5.1%, 0.0%, and 0.0% vs 47.2%, 48.8%, 3.8%, 0.0%, and 0.3%, respectively; P = .007) between the stiff and nonstiff groups. Preoperatively, the stiff group showed significantly worse forward flexion (95.9° ± 23.6° vs 147.7° ± 4.2°, respectively; P < .001), external rotation (17.4° ± 10.1° vs 51.6° ± 12.1°, respectively; P < .001), and internal rotation (L5 vs L2, respectively; P < .001) and lower KSS (52.1 ± 13.8 vs 66.3 ± 13.5, respectively; P < .001) and UCLA scores (18.7 ± 4.8 vs 22.5 ± 4.5, respectively; P < .001) than the nonstiff group. However, these differences became insignificant from 3 months postoperatively for forward flexion ( P > .05) and KSS ( P > .05) and UCLA scores ( P > .05), from 1 year postoperatively for external rotation ( P > .05), and at the last follow-up for internal rotation ( P > .05). A multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that only mediolateral tear size (odds ratio, 1.043; P = .014) and type 2 tendon involvement (odds ratio, 4.493; P = .003) were independent predictors of a retear.

CONCLUSION

RCTs concomitant with shoulder stiffness showed a smaller mediolateral tear size, anterosuperior tendon involvement, and less severe fatty infiltration preoperatively and better repair integrity postoperatively than RCTs without stiffness. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes and range of motion at final follow-up were similar between the 2 groups.

Interstitial tears of the rotator cuff: difficulty in preoperative diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the characteristic findings of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the clinical and radiologic outcomes of interstitial tear of the rotator cuff treated with arthroscopic repair after tear completion.

METHODS

Forty-one patients (14 men and 27 women; mean age, 56.5 years) with arthroscopically confirmed interstitial tears underwent single-row repair after tear completion. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (68.3%) were properly evaluated with MRI before surgery. Seven cases (17.1%) were misdiagnosed as bursal-sided tears and 5 cases (12.2%) were misdiagnosed as articular-sided tears on the basis of presurgical MRI findings. Arthroscopy revealed fibrillation and dimpling of the tendon surface in all cases and congestion within the defect in 36 cases (87.8%). At the final follow-up, the visual analog scale score for pain during motion decreased to 0.8 from a preoperative mean of 6.1 (P <.001). Moreover, at the final follow-up, the mean University of California-Los Angeles score and Constant score improved from 15.7 and 51.8 to 32.1 and 83.8, respectively (P <.001 for all). At 9 months after surgery, MRI revealed no cases of retear.

CONCLUSION

Interstitial tears are difficult to diagnose before surgery because MRI findings may lead to the misdiagnosis of interstitial tears as articular- or bursal-sided tears. If MRI-based diagnosis is indicative of articular- or bursal-sided tears but arthroscopy reveals fibrillation and dimpling of the tendon surface, interstitial tears should be suspected. The defective sites in interstitial tears are usually accompanied by congestion.

[Effectiveness of rotator cuff repair with manipulation release and arthroscopic debridement for rotator cuff tear with shoulder stiffness]

Objective

To investigate effectiveness of rotator cuff repair with manipulation release and arthroscopic debridement for rotator cuff tear with shoulder stiffness.

Methods

A retrospectively study was performed on the data of 15 patients with rotator cuff tear combined with shoulder stiffness (stiff group) and 24 patients without stiffness (non-stiff group) between January 2014 and December 2015. The patients in the stiff group underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with manipulation release and arthroscopic debridement while the patients in the non-stiff group only received arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The patients in the stiff group were older than the patients in the non-stiff group, showing significant difference ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in gender, type of rotator cuff tear, side of rotator cuff tear, and combined with diabetes between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and range of motion (ROM) were used to evaluate the effectiveness after operation.

Results

All incisions healed by first intention without any complication after operation. The patients were followed up 13-31 months in the stiff group (mean, 19.2 months) and 13-23 months in the non-stiff group (mean, 20.3 months). There was no significant difference in follow- up time between 2 groups ( t=-0.573, P=0.570). The VAS score in the stiff group was higher than that in the non-stiff group before operation ( t=-2.166, P=0.037); there was no significant difference between 2 groups at 3, 6, 12 months and last follow-up ( P>0.05). The forward flexion and external rotation were significantly lower in the stiff group than those in the non-stiff group before operation and at 3 months after operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between 2 groups at 6, 12 months and last follow-up ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the internal rotation was beyond L ₃ level in 2 groups. The preoperative UCLA score was significant lower in the stiff group than that in the non-stiff group ( P=0.037); but there was no significant difference in UCLA score at last follow-up between 2 groups ( P=0.786). There was no significant difference in pre- and post-operative ASES scores between 2 groups ( P>0.05).

Conclusion

Satisfactory effectiveness can be achieved in the patients with rotator cuff tear combined with shoulder stiffness after rotator cuff repair with manipulation release and arthroscopic debridement, although the patients with shoulder stiffness had slower postoperative recovery of ROM until 6 months after operation.

Do corticosteroid injections compromise rotator cuff tendon healing after arthroscopic repair?

Background

Rotator cuff tears are associated with capsular contraction and stiffness that should be restored before surgical repair. Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are frequently used as conservative treatments before surgical repair. This study aimed to determine the influence of preoperative and postoperative CSIs on clinical and anatomic outcomes after rotator cuff repair.

Methods

The authors analyzed the records of 257 patients who had arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, of whom 212 were evaluated at 3.1 ± 1.0 years (median, 2.9 years; range, 1.4-7.1 years) by clinical (Constant score) and ultrasound (Sugaya classification) examinations. Univariable and multivariable regressions were performed to determine associations between outcomes and administration of preoperative and postoperative CSIs, patient characteristics, and tendon characteristics.

Results

The Constant scores improved from 56.4 ± 15.1 to 80.8 ± 12.5. Multivariable regression confirmed that postoperative scores were associated with postoperative CSIs (P < .001), preoperative scores (P < .001), gender (P < .001), and fatty infiltration (P < .005). Retears (Sugaya types IV-V) were observed in 27 shoulders (13%). Multivariable regression clarified that retear rates were associated only with postoperative CSIs (P = .007) and stage 3 fatty infiltration (P = .001). Adjusting for confounders, an additional postoperative CSI would decrease scores by 4.7 points and double retear risks.

Discussion

Preoperative CSIs had no influence on clinical scores and retear rates, whereas postoperative CSIs were associated with lower scores and more retears. Although we can infer that preoperative CSIs do not affect outcomes, we cannot determine whether postoperative CSIs compromised outcomes or were administered in patients who had already poor outcomes. Our findings may resolve controversies about the administration of preoperative CSIs.

One-stage surgical treatment for concomitant rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness has comparable results with isolated rotator cuff tears: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Addressing preoperative shoulder stiffness before rotator cuff repair (RCR) is advocated, but the effectiveness of this approach is debatable. We hypothesized that 1-stage treatment of concomitant rotator cuff tear (RCT) with shoulder stiffness has comparable results with isolated RCT.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched using the keywords of "shoulder stiffness" OR "adhesive capsulitis" OR "frozen shoulder" AND "rotator cuff." Studies that met all the criteria compared the 2 arms of isolated RCT vs. RCT with concomitant shoulder stiffness, received no physical therapy before surgery, and reported data of preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and functional outcomes after surgery.

RESULTS

Four level III studies met the inclusion criteria. The non-stiff group (isolated RCT) included 460 patients who underwent RCR; the stiff group (RCT with concomitant shoulder stiffness) included 111 patients who underwent RCR and manipulation under anesthesia with or without capsular release. There were significant differences in preoperative ROM between stiff and non-stiff groups. At final follow-up, there were no statistical differences in all ROM between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in comparing preoperative and postoperative outcome scores including visual analog scale for pain, Constant, modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and University of California-Los Angeles scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant surgical treatment of nonmassive RCT and moderate shoulder stiffness in 1 stage may have comparable results to the surgical treatment of RCT in patients without preoperative stiffness. Therefore, a physical therapy regimen before surgical intervention may not be necessary.

A Long Preoperative Duration of Symptoms Is Associated With Worse Functional Outcomes After 1-Stage Arthroscopic Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears With Shoulder Stiffness

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness remain a difficult issue. Despite the reported satisfactory results of 1-stage surgery, little information is available regarding the factors that affect clinical outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate the 1-stage arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness and to present the influence of duration of symptoms (DOS) on postoperative functional outcomes. The hypothesis was that a long preoperative DOS is related to worse functional outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

A long preoperative DOS is related to worse functional outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed with consecutive patients who underwent 1-stage surgery between January 2012 and July 2014. Forty-four patients were enrolled in the long DOS group (DOS ≥6 months or LDOS), and 38 were enrolled in the short DOS group (DOS <6 months or SDOS). There were no significant differences in the other variables between the groups. The patients were followed for a mean of 33.8 months, and the functional and radiographic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups achieved apparent functional postoperative improvements in terms of range of motion, pain, strength, and functional scores ( P < .001 for all). Despite the overall improvements, the patients in the SDOS group had significantly better outcomes according to all functional instruments. The mean postoperative abduction and external rotation at the side in the SDOS group were higher than in the LDOS group (abduction: 162.2° vs 152.8°, respectively [ P = .002]; external rotation: 64.7° vs 56.9°, respectively [ P = .004]). The mean postoperative functional scores in the SDOS group were all higher than in the LDOS group (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score: 91.1 vs 81.9, respectively; Constant-Murley score: 76.9 vs 71.8, respectively; Fudan University Shoulder Score [FUSS], 90.6 vs 81.1, respectively), and the mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain in the SDOS group was lower (0.7 vs 1.8, respectively) ( P < .001 for all). The difference in the retear rates was not significant, with 7 retears in the SDOS group and 4 in the LDOS group ( P = .216).

CONCLUSION

One-stage surgery effectively achieved overall improvements. A preoperative DOS of ≥6 months led to poorer functional outcomes, which suggests that surgeons should propose a surgical treatment for this condition before symptoms persist for 6 months.

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With Concomitant Capsular Release

Patients with rotator cuff tears may present with or subsequently develop concomitant shoulder stiffness. The treatment of rotator cuff tears in the face of passive glenohumeral motion loss is controversial. Preoperative shoulder stiffness has been considered by some a contraindication to rotator cuff repair. Some surgeons recommend staging surgical procedures and delaying rotator cuff repair until shoulder stiffness has resolved. However, this can lead to prolonged recovery times and patient dissatisfaction. We describe a surgical technique that allows for the single-stage arthroscopic management of rotator cuff tears with associated adhesive capsulitis. Arthroscopic capsular release and shoulder manipulation are performed in the same operative setting as arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We have found that this combined, single-stage arthroscopic approach can effectively treat patients with rotator cuff tears and concomitant shoulder stiffness.

The effect of concomitant glenohumeral joint capsule release during rotator cuff repair--a comparative study

BACKGROUND

There is debate as to whether to operate or to defer surgery on patients with concomitant rotator cuff tear and shoulder stiffness. The purpose of this study was therefore to compare the outcomes in those patients who had both their rotator cuff tear and shoulder stiffness treated with the outcomes of patients who had a rotator cuff repair but no stiffness.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients formed the stiffness group (receiving a concomitant rotator cuff repair and manipulation under anesthesia ± arthroscopic capsular release for preoperative ipsilateral stiffness), and a chronologically matched group of 170 rotator cuff repair-only patients formed the nonstiffness group. Patients ranked their pain and function scores preoperatively and at 1 week, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 2 years postoperatively; examiners recorded range of motion, strength, and presence of impingement signs. Repair integrity was determined using ultrasound.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups had significantly improved clinical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up compared with preoperative values. Range of motion was similar between groups at 2 years for forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation, whereas the nonstiffness group had a superior range of internal rotation (P = .014). Stiffness patients had 0 of 25 (0%) retears at 2 years compared with 34 of 170 (20%) in the nonstiffness group (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

The good outcomes of rotator cuff repair with glenohumeral capsular release disproved our hypothesis and suggest that there is no advantage in delaying repair of a rotator cuff tear to allow stiffness to resolve and that stiffness confers an advantage in terms of repair integrity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Treatment Study.

Effect of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery in patients with preoperative restricted range of motion

Background

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of rotator cuff (RC) decompression and/or repair on post-operative ROM in patients with pre-operative restricted passive motion who had undergone arthroscopic subacromial debridement and/or rotator cuff repair. Potential predictors of ROM recovery such as age, sex, mechanism of injury, type of surgery, presence of an endocrine illness and having an active Worker Compensation claim related to the shoulder were explored.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Pre-operative stiffness measured intra-operatively was defined as flexion of < =100° or external rotation of < =30° under anesthesia. Patients who received manipulation under anesthesia or required capsular release were excluded.

Results

Two hundred and eighteen patients met the criteria for having stiffness under anesthesia. Twenty six patients had stiffness in both directions, 19 patients had isolated restricted flexion and 173 had isolated restricted external rotation. At six months post-operatively, a statistically significant improvement was observed on average in all disability measures (P < 0.0001). The ROM improved on average in the restricted direction at 6 months (p < 0.0001). Older age had a negative impact on recovery of external rotation (F_2,216 = −5.78, p = 0.02). Being a female, having a traumatic event, having a RC repair, or suffering from an endocrine illness such as diabetes, did not have a negative impact on recovery. Patients with an active work-related compensation claim showed an inferior recovery of flexion (F_2,216 = −8.76, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

Patients with RC pathology and concomitant stiffness showed significant improvement in ROM at six months following RC decompression or repair without the need for formal capsular releases or the performance of manipulation under anesthesia. Older patients and those with active Workers Compensation claim showed an inferior recovery in isolated directions.

Mechanical risk of rotator cuff repair failure during passive movements: A simulation-based study

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in rotator cuff surgery techniques, re-tear rate remains above 20% and increases with tear severity. Mechanical stresses to failure of repaired tendons have been reported. While optimal immobilization postures were proposed to minimize this stress, post-operative rehabilitation protocols have never been assessed with respect to these values. Purpose was to use musculoskeletal simulation to predict when the stress in repaired tendons exceeds safety limits during passive movements. Hence, guidelines could be provided towards safer post-operative exercises.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy participants volunteered in passive three-dimensional shoulder range-of-motion and passive rehabilitation exercises assessment. Stress in all rotator cuff tendons was predicted during each movement by means of a musculoskeletal model using simulations with different type and size of tears. Safety stress thresholds were defined based on repaired tendon loads to failure reported in the literature and used to discriminate safe from unsafe ranges-of-motion.

FINDINGS

Increased tear size and multiple tendons tear decreased safe range-of-motion. Mostly, glenohumeral elevations below 38°, above 65°, or performed with the arm held in internal rotation cause excessive stresses in most types and sizes of injury during abduction, scaption or flexion. Larger safe amplitudes of elevation are found in scapular plane for supraspinatus alone, supraspinatus plus infraspinatus, and supraspinatus plus subscapularis tears.

INTERPRETATION

This study reinforces that passive early rehabilitation exercises could contribute to re-tear due to excessive stresses. Recommendations arising from this study, for instance to keep the arm externally rotated during elevation in case of supraspinatus or supraspinatus plus infraspinatus tear, could help prevent re-tear.

Three-dimensional analysis versus goniometric measurement of total active elevation in normal subjects

BACKGROUND

Multiple planes of motion have been reported for shoulder elevation performed by visual inspection with a goniometer. It is typically measured by a clinician who is standing or sitting at the side of the patient. Instead, accurate assessment of shoulder elevation must be performed by using a plane of reference that is perpendicular to the plane of motion being measured.

METHODS

Three repetitions of humeral elevation in the sagittal, scapular, and coronal planes were performed in a random order and measured by goniometry and three-dimensional (3D) electromagnetic sensors. A guide bar was used to control the initial plane of motion for the sagittal and coronal planes. The plane of motion at 90° and at peak elevation was recorded for each of the 3 defined planes. A goniometer was used to measure the range of maximal elevation performed in each plane, for each subject, by visual inspection.

RESULTS

The 3D data revealed that subjects consistently moved toward scaption as the extremity moved above 90° of elevation, regardless of the initial plane of motion. Significant differences were seen in the goniometric data for the plane of motion at 90° (P = .00) in flexion, abduction, and scaption. Goniometric measurements revealed greater maximum elevation angles in comparison to the 3D kinematic measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Maximal glenohumeral elevation occurred near the plane of the scapula in all subjects, regardless of the plane in which elevation was initiated. Goniometric measurement of total elevation resulted in greater range of motion measurements than actually occurred because the observer was not routinely positioned in a plane perpendicular to the plane of actual elevation of the upper extremity.

Early Versus Delayed Passive Range of Motion After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative rehabilitation has been shown to affect healing of the rotator cuff after surgical repair. However, it is unknown whether an early or delayed rehabilitation protocol is most beneficial for healing.

PURPOSE

To determine whether early versus delayed passive range of motion (PROM) affects rotator cuff (RC) retear rates after surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between January 2003 and February 2014 was conducted. Retear rates were compared for early (within 1 week after surgery) versus delayed (3-6 weeks after surgery) PROM using χ(2) or Fisher exact tests as well as relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs. In the first analysis, data from evidence level 1 studies that directly compared early versus delayed PROM were pooled; and in the second analysis, data from level 1 to 4 studies that did not directly compare early versus delayed PROM were pooled. The second analysis was stratified by tear size and repair method.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (1729 repairs) were included. The first analysis of level 1 studies did not reveal a significant difference in retear rates for early (13.7%) versus delayed (10.5%) PROM (P = .36; RR = 1.30 [95% CI, 0.74-2.30]). The second analysis revealed that for ≤3 cm tears, the risk of retear was lower for early versus delayed PROM for transosseous (TO) plus single-row anchor (SA) repairs (18.7% vs 28.2%, P = .02; RR = 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.95]). For >5 cm tears, the risk of retear was greater for early versus delayed PROM for double-row anchor (DA) repairs (56.4% vs 20%, P = .002; RR = 2.82 [95% CI, 1.31-6.07]) and for all repair methods combined (52.2% vs 22.6%, P = .01; RR = 2.31 [95% CI, 1.16-4.61]). There were no statistically significant associations for tears measuring <1 cm, 1 to 3 cm, 3 to 5 cm, and >3 cm.

CONCLUSION

Evidence is lacking with regard to the optimal timing of PROM after RC repair; however, this study suggests that tear size may be influential.

Predicting Pain and Disability After Shoulder Arthroscopy: Rotator Cuff Tear Severity and Concomitant Arthroscopic Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Study the influence of concomitant arthroscopic procedures and rotator cuff tear (RCT) severity on daily pain intensity and disability after shoulder arthroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of 145 patients (mean age, 42.66±17.6; number of males=96) completed daily pain intensity and disability measures before shoulder arthroscopy. RCT severity was assessed on a 7-point scale based on operative report. Operative procedures were categorized based on anatomic location and invasiveness to calculate a weighted concomitant procedure estimate. Postoperative daily pain and disability were assessed 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year status after surgery.

RESULTS

Only concomitant procedures were associated with 3-month daily pain intensity after adjusting for age, sex, pain duration, and baseline daily pain intensity (R=0.03; standardized β=0.203; P=0.036). Moreover, post hoc analysis revealed concomitant procedures remained predictive of 3-month daily pain intensity when the estimate was calculated independent of RCT procedures (R=0.05; standardized β=0.233; P=0.007), and when accounting for postoperative factors of physical therapy and analgesic medication (R=0.05; standardized β=0.237; P=0.007). Neither RCT severity nor concomitant procedures were predictive of daily pain intensity at 6 months and 1 year, or disability at any time-point, in the adjusted models (P>0.05).

DISCUSSION

This study introduces a novel means for estimating concurrent procedures for use as a prognostic factor. Our findings are similar to previous research of RCT severity that was found to have limited influence on postoperative outcomes. In contrast, this study highlights the potential importance of accounting for concomitant arthroscopic procedures as a predictor of early postoperative pain intensity outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation for rotator cuff tear with stiffness: a matched-pair comparative study between patients with and without stiffness

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes after surgical treatment between rotator cuff tears with and without shoulder stiffness and evaluate the serial changes in pain intensity, functional scores, and range of motion (ROM).

METHODS

The study comprised 26 patients with preoperative stiffness (stiff group) and 26 patients without stiffness (non-stiff group). The stiff group underwent arthroscopic or mini-open rotator cuff repair with arthroscopic capsular release and manipulation. The non-stiff group with rotator cuff repair only was matched for age and sex with the stiff group. The visual analog scale (VAS) pain score; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; and ROM were evaluated preoperatively; 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery; and at final follow-up.

RESULTS

Both groups had significant improvements in the VAS pain score, UCLA score, ASES score, and ROM at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding VAS pain score, UCLA score, and ASES score at any period after surgery. In the stiff group, mean forward flexion was significantly lower than that in the non-stiff group at 3 months after surgery (143.1° v 154.2°, P = .003). Mean external rotation and internal rotation were significantly lower than those in the non-stiff group at 3 months after surgery (37.9° v 44.2°, P = .043, and 15.8 v 13.9, P < .001, respectively) and 6 months after surgery (49.1° v 57.3°, P = .002, and 13.2 v 12.0, P = .033, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall satisfactory clinical outcomes could be achieved in both the stiff and non-stiff groups, although the stiff group had slower postoperative recovery of ROM until 6 months after surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study, prognosis study.

Are delayed operations effective for patients with rotator cuff tears and concomitant stiffness? An analysis of immediate versus delayed surgery on outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of immediate rotator cuff repair with capsular release and those of rotator cuff repair after the stiffness was treated with rehabilitative therapy.

METHODS

Between June 2007 and December 2010, we recruited 63 patients with rotator cuff tears and stiffness. In 33 patients arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was performed with capsular release simultaneously (group I). In 30 patients arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was performed after 6 months of preoperative rehabilitation for stiffness (group II). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Constant score, and visual analog scale score for pain and range of motion (ROM) were assessed at the start of the study; at 3, 6, and 12 months; and at the last visit. The postoperative cuff tendon integrity was assessed between 6 and 12 months using magnetic resonance or ultrasound images.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative demographic data between the groups (P > .05). The mean follow-up period was 21.54 months. After treatment, there was significant improvement in ROM and functional scores in both groups, as measured at the last follow-up (P < .05). No statistical differences were found in clinical scores and ROM at the last follow-up (P > .05). On assessment of the magnetic resonance or ultrasound images taken 6 to 12 months postoperatively, the retear rate for the repaired cuff tendon in each group was 12.1% in group I and 13.4% in group II.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of rotator cuff tears with stiffness, satisfactory results can be achieved either by repairing the tear with simultaneous capsular release or by waiting to perform the repair after preoperative rehabilitation for stiffness. Because a delayed rotator cuff repair after improving ROM offered no clear advantage over an immediate operation, we recommend surgically treating rotator cuff tears with concomitant stiffness early using a simultaneous capsular release method to save time and to avoid unnecessary rehabilitation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Clinical outcomes do not support arthroscopic posterior capsular release in addition to anterior release for shoulder stiffness: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic capsular release is an effective treatment for shoulder stiffness, yet its extent is controversial.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic capsular release in patients with and without posterior extended capsular release for shoulder stiffness.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and March 2011, 75 patients who underwent arthroscopic capsular release for shoulder stiffness were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups. In group I (n = 37), capsular release was performed, including release of the rotator interval and anterior and inferior capsule. In group II (n = 38), capsular release was extended to the posterior capsule. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog scale for pain, and range of motion (ROM) were used for the evaluation before surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

Preoperative demographic data of age, sex, symptom duration, and clinical outcomes showed no significant differences (P > .05). The average follow-up was 18.4 months. Both groups showed significantly increased ROM at the last follow-up compared with preoperative ROM (P < .05). At the last follow-up, no statistical differences were found (P > .05) between groups I and II in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (91.3 vs. 79.5), Simple Shoulder Test (83.3 vs. 83.3), and visual analog scale (1.5 vs. 2.2). There were also no statistical differences between the 2 groups at the last follow-up (P > .05) in ROM: forward flexion, 145.2° vs. 143.3°; external rotation with 90° of abduction, 88.1° vs. 86.2°; external rotation at side, 88.9° vs. 82.9°; and internal rotation, 9.1° vs. 8.3°.

CONCLUSION

Posterior extended capsular release might not be necessary in arthroscopic surgery for shoulder stiffness.

Postoperative stiff shoulder after open rotator cuff repair: a 3- to 20-year follow-up study

Background and Aims:

Stiffness after a rotator cuff tear is common. So is stiffness after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In the literature, however, postoperative restriction of passive range of motion after open rotator cuff repair in shoulders with free passive range of motion at surgery has seldom been recognized. We hypothesize that this postoperative stiffness is more frequent than recognized and slows the primary postoperative healing after a rotator cuff reconstruction. We wondered how common is postoperative restriction of both active and passive range of motion after open rotator cuff repair in shoulders with free passive preoperative range of motion, how it recovers, and whether this condition influences short- and long-term results of surgery. We also explored factors predicting postoperative shoulder stiffness.

Material and Methods:

We retrospectively identified 103 postoperative stiff shoulders among 416 consecutive open rotator cuff repairs, evaluating incidence and duration of stiffness, short-term clinical results and long-term range of motion, pain relief, shoulder strength, and functional results 3–20 (mean 8.7) years after surgery in 56 patients.

Results:

The incidence of postoperative shoulder stiffness was 20%. It delayed primary postoperative healing by 3–6 months and resolved during a mean 6.3 months postoperatively. External rotation resolved first, corresponding to that of the controls at 3 months; flexion and abduction took less than 1 year after surgery. The mean summarized range of motion (flexion + abduction + external rotation) increased as high as 93% of the controls’ range of motion by 6 months and 100% by 1 year. Flexion, abduction, and internal rotation improved to the level of the contralateral shoulders as did pain, strength, and function. Age at surgery and condition of the biceps tendon were related to postoperative stiffness.

Conclusions:

Postoperative stiff shoulder after open rotator cuff repair is a common complication resolving in 6–12 months with good long-term results.

Effect of capsular release in the treatment of shoulder stiffness concomitant with rotator cuff repair: diabetes as a predisposing factor associated with treatment outcome

BACKGROUND

In spite of the high prevalence of shoulder stiffness during rotator cuff repair, optimal management remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To identify the effect of capsular release during rotator cuff repair on the outcomes of patients with both shoulder stiffness and a rotator cuff tear, based on subgroup analyses.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Forty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 61.5 ± 8.3 years) were enrolled who underwent arthroscopic repair of a small- to large-sized full-thickness rotator cuff tear and manipulation for concomitant shoulder stiffness (passive forward flexion ≤120°, external rotation at the side ≤45°). The first 21 consecutive patients underwent manipulation alone to treat stiffness; the second 28 consecutive patients underwent capsular release with manipulation. Among the 49 patients, 25 showed severe stiffness (forward flexion ≤100°, external rotation at the side ≤30°; 11 in the first series and 14 in the second series), and 15 had diabetes mellitus (30.6%; 6 in the first series and 9 in the second series). Shoulder range of motion was measured 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively and at final follow-up visit. Simultaneously, functional outcome was evaluated by visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and muscle strength ratio (involved/uninvolved), and cuff integrity was assessed ultrasonographically at least 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

All range of motion measurements, functional scores, and muscle strength ratios significantly improved postoperatively regardless of the treatment method of stiffness. No outcome measure differed significantly between patients who did and did not undergo capsular release, regardless of the severity of stiffness, except for a temporary improvement in external rotation at side 3 months postoperatively in favor of those who underwent capsular release in cases with severe stiffness. Among patients with diabetes mellitus however, those who underwent capsular release showed greater improvement in forward flexion after 3 months and 1 year and in external rotation at the side for all time points (all P < .05), except for 6 weeks postoperatively; these patients also had a significantly higher final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = .03). Of 21 patients who underwent manipulation alone and of 28 who underwent capsular release and manipulation, 2 and 1 developed retears, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both manipulation and capsular release with manipulation significantly improved range of motion and produced satisfactory functional outcomes. The outcomes did not differ between treatment methods for stiffness regardless of the severity of stiffness. In patients with diabetes mellitus however, capsular release at the time of rotator cuff repair seems to be beneficial, especially for external rotation and final postoperative function.

Effect of immobilization without passive exercise after rotator cuff repair: randomized clinical trial comparing four and eight weeks of immobilization

BACKGROUND

While animal studies have shown better healing with a longer duration of protection without motion exercise after rotator cuff repair, supporting clinical studies are rare. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of immobilization following rotator cuff repair and to determine whether there was any difference in clinical outcome related to the duration of immobilization.

METHODS

One hundred patients who underwent arthroscopic single-row repair of a posterosuperior rotator cuff tear (mean, 2.3 cm in the coronal-oblique plane and 2.0 cm in the sagittal-oblique plane) were prospectively randomized to be treated with immobilization for four or eight weeks. During the immobilization period, no passive or active range-of-motion exercise, including pendulum exercise, was allowed. According to the intention-to-treat protocol and full analysis set, eighty-eight patients were evaluated clinically and with magnetic resonance imaging postoperatively, after exclusion of twelve patients without postoperative clinical evaluation. Ranges of motion, clinical scores, and retear rates were compared between the four and eight-week groups. Ninety-eight patients were contacted by telephone at a mean of thirty-five months to investigate the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean duration of immobilization was 4.1 weeks in the four-week group and 7.3 weeks in the eight-week group. There were nine full-thickness retears (10%), and 89% of the patients rated their result as excellent or good. There were five full-thickness retears in the four-week group and four in the eight-week group (p = 0.726). At the time of final follow-up, the two groups showed no differences in range of motion or clinical scores. However, the proportion showing stiffness was higher in the eight-week group (38% compared with 18%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Eight weeks of immobilization did not yield a higher rate of healing of medium-sized rotator cuff tears compared with four weeks of immobilization.

One-stage arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe a 1-stage treatment with concomitant arthroscopic capsular release and rotator cuff repair and present clinical outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

METHODS

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was performed in 211 consecutive patients. Forty-three patients had severe concomitant shoulder stiffness at the time of the repair. In the stiffness group, 1-stage arthroscopic capsular release and rotator cuff repair were performed. Preoperative mean passive forward flexion was 124°, whereas external rotation at the side was 309°. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up, which included a visual analog scale score for pain, tests of muscle power and range of motion, the Constant score, and the modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder evaluation form and modified University of California, Los Angeles scores.

RESULTS

The mean visual analog scale score during motion at the last follow-up was 1.5 in the stiffness group and 1.3 in the non-stiffness group. In the stiffness group, forward flexion was 175° whereas external rotation at the side was 60° postoperatively; shoulder motion improved (P < .001) and was comparable with that of the contralateral side. Other functional outcome instruments showed no statistical difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, 1-stage treatment of patients with rotator cuff tears and shoulder stiffness was performed by arthroscopic capsular release and cuff repair, and overall satisfactory results were achieved in selected patients. The results of the stiffness group in this study were statistically the same as those in the non-stiffness group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Factors that impact rehabilitation strategies after rotator cuff repair

Multiple factors influence rehabilitation strategies after rotator cuff repair. These variables may also impact the overall success of the surgical intervention. Physicians and rehabilitation specialists should be aware of prognostic indicators that can provide therapeutic guidance and offer insights into eventual clinical outcomes. The success of surgical and rehabilitative interventions is often evaluated in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, return to activity, and pain. Although these factors are somewhat interdependent, each of them independently influences the final result. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the recent literature in this area to provide insight as to the short- and long-term outcomes that patients should expect based on their unique presentations. This article examines both intrinsic and extrinsic patient factors to help therapists develop customized rehabilitation programs that optimize surgical outcomes.

Iatrogenic glenoid fracture after brisement manipulation for the stiffness of shoulder in patients with rotator cuff tear

In combined stiffness with rotator cuff tear, the brisement manipulation with or without capsular release has been more common procedure prior to the rotator cuff repair. It is known to be relatively safe and easy procedure with rare complications. However, the present authors found the iatrogenic fracture of anteroinferior portion of glenoid after brisement manipulation during the arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The patient was followed up with the routine postoperative protocol for rotator cuff repair, which was composed of 4 weeks of protection with abduction brace, passive and active assisted range of motion exercise afterward, and progressive strengthening exercise. Two years after surgery, the patient showed improved clinical score and healing of fracture fragment. However, iatrogenic glenoid fracture should be kept in mind when the brisement manipulation is performed during arthroscopic surgery.

Arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears with shoulder stiffness: a comparison of functional outcomes with and without capsular release

BACKGROUND

In a single arthroscopic surgery for rotator cuff tears with a stiff shoulder, closed manipulation with or without arthroscopic capsular release has been combined with the repair. Few studies have reported functional results after this surgery, and a clinical comparison has not been reported.

PURPOSE

To compare functional outcomes with and without capsular release in arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears with a stiff shoulder.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs with a concomitant stiff shoulder, 34 patients were treated with either manipulation and arthroscopic capsular release (group A; n = 18) or manipulation without capsular release (group B; n = 16). Preoperative mean passive forward flexion was 118° in group A and 117° in group B, whereas external rotation at the side was 28° and 29°, respectively. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of visual analog scale for pain, muscle power, range of motion, Constant score, modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder evaluation form, and modified University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) scores.

RESULTS

The mean modified ASES score was 90.3 for group A and 87.7 for group B (P = .086). The mean UCLA scores were 34.3 and 33.0, respectively (P = .247). The 2 groups showed a significant difference in forward flexion and external rotation post operatively, as group B recovered more slowly. There was no difference in the mean visual analog scale for pain at the last follow-up, but a 13° difference in forward flexion (P < .001) and a 10° difference in external rotation (P =.001) were seen.

CONCLUSION

Overall satisfactory results could be achieved by either method, whereas rapid recovery and improvement of range of motion could be achieved by using a single arthroscopic repair and concomitant release for patients with rotator cuff tears with stiff shoulder.

The factors affecting stiffness occurring with rotator cuff tear

BACKGROUND

Stiffness after a rotator cuff tear is common, and it affects postoperative prognosis. This study aims to define the factors affecting stiffness that accompanies rotator cuff tear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2002 to May 2009 (84 months), 143 patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Of these, 119 were enrolled as subjects in this study. Preoperative range of motion was measured in all patients. Stiffness of the shoulder was defined as restriction of active and passive motion of 100° of elevation or less, less than 50% of external rotation, and internal rotation only to the sacrum. Factors that can affect stiffness were evaluated, including the type, size, and direction of rotator cuff; duration of symptoms; gender; age; presence of accompanying medical disease; degenerative factors (Goutallier classification); and presence of trauma. Retrospective analysis was conducted accordingly.

RESULTS

A statistically significantly higher degree of stiffness was seen for full-thickness tears than for partial-thickness tears (P = .0187). Between 2 groups that were divided by direction of rotator cuff tear, posterosuperior cuff tears showed a statistically significantly higher prevalence of stiffness (P = .0415). Patients with trauma had a statistically higher prevalence of stiffness (P = .0264). The other factors did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSION

In patients with rotator cuff tear, the type and direction of rotator cuff tear and the presence of trauma seem to increase the limitation of preoperative joint range of motion.

Prevention and management of stiffness after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: systematic review and implications for rotator cuff healing

PURPOSE

To define the incidence of stiffness after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) and address the prevention and management of postoperative stiffness.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed using the combined terms "rotator cuff and stiffness," "shoulder and capsular release," and "capsular release and stiffness." Inclusion criteria were (1) primary outcome of postoperative shoulder stiffness, (2) Levels I to IV evidence, and (3) entirely arthroscopic technique for rotator cuff repair.

RESULTS

Seven articles met our inclusion criteria. Two articles discussed the management of preoperative stiffness and ARCR. These articles managed preoperative stiffness differently, preventing an adequate comparison to provide recommendations. Three articles described both the incidence of and risk factors for postoperative stiffness after ARCR. The incidence of transient stiffness responsive to nonoperative management was 10%. The incidence of resistant stiffness that was permanent or required capsular release was 3.3%. Several risk factors for stiffness were identified in this review. Two articles focused on postoperative rehabilitation protocols and stiffness after ARCR. Overall, resistant postoperative stiffness was reported in 1.5% of patients with an immediate passive range-of-motion protocol, 4.5% of patients in a 6-week sling-immobilization protocol, and 0% of patients with a modified protocol. Three articles, all among the above mentioned articles, reported that arthroscopic capsular release for stiffness after ARCR improved motion to a level comparable to that in patients who did not require reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies in this systematic review indicate that with ARCR, postoperative stiffness resistant to nonoperative management is uncommon despite an initial immobilization period. In the setting of resistant postoperative stiffness, arthroscopic capsular release can successfully restore range of motion. ARCR allows a delayed mobilization protocol that may be important in achieving rotator cuff healing. The optimal management of preoperative stiffness in patients undergoing ARCR is inconclusive based on this review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Functional recovery period after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: is it predictable before surgery?

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported functional recovery of the shoulder after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Preoperative estimation of the time required for functional recovery is important for determining surgical indications and for planning timing of the surgery and an appropriate postoperative physical therapy.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore asked: (1) how long it takes to obtain functional recovery after ARCR, and (2) what preoperative factors influence functional recovery time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 201 patients who had undergone ARCR. Using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) shoulder scoring system, we defined the functional recovery period as the time required to achieve a score greater than 80% in each component. We evaluated the functional recovery periods and assessed preoperative influencing factors such as age, gender, shoulder stiffness, morphologic features of rotator cuff tears, and rotator cuff tear size.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients (31%) took less than 3 months, 81 patients (40%) took between 3 and 6 months, and 57 patients (28%) took greater than 6 months to achieve a score greater than 80% in each JOA shoulder assessment component. Younger patients without shoulder stiffness and with smaller rotator cuff tears had shorter functional recovery periods.

CONCLUSIONS

One hundred forty-four patients (72%) obtained functional recovery within 6 months after ARCR. Age, shoulder stiffness, and rotator cuff tear size influenced functional recovery time.