Superior Capsular Reconstruction Combined With Lower Trapezius Tendon Transfer Improves the Biomechanics in Posterosuperior Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatments for chronic posterosuperior massive rotator cuff tear (MRCT) are still controversial. Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), which provides a static stabilizer to decrease superior humeral head translation, and lower trapezius tendon transfer (LTTT) with centralization of the humeral head, which prevents superior humeral head migration, are potential surgical options. To date, SCR combined with LTTT has not been fully investigated.

HYPOTHESIS

Restoration of static stabilizer and dynamic stabilizer together would effectively improve shoulder kinematics in posterosuperior MRCT.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A custom-made shoulder mechanics testing system was used to test 8 fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders. The testing conditions were as follows: (1) intact; (2) posterosuperior MRCT (supraspinatus and infraspinatus removed); (3) SCR using the fascia lata; (4) LTTT; and (5) SCR combined with LTTT. The total rotational range of motion (ROM), superior translation, anteroposterior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure were evaluated at 0°, 30°, and 60° of shoulder abduction. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests were performed.

RESULTS

The total rotational ROM, superior translation, anteroposterior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure increased in posterosuperior MRCTs (all, P < .05). The rotational ROM, superior translation, anteroposterior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure at 0° and 30° of shoulder abduction decreased in SCR (all, P < .05). However, there was no significant improvement in rotational ROM, superior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure at 60° of shoulder abduction (P > .05). LTTT resulted in a significant decrease in the superior translation, anteroposterior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure at 0°, 30°, and 60° of shoulder abduction (P < .05). SCR combined with LTTT restored the total rotational ROM, superior translation, anteroposterior translation, and peak subacromial contact pressure at 0°, 30°, and 60° of shoulder abduction (all, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

In the cadaveric model, SCR combined with LTTT showed improved shoulder kinematics and contact pressures in the posterosuperior MRCT model compared with SCR or LTTT alone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

SCR combined with LTTT may be regarded as an alternative surgical procedure for posterosuperior MRCTs.

Prevalence, Timing, Locational Distribution, and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Elbow Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic techniques aim to reduce complications and accelerate recovery of the elbow after treatments for posttraumatic stiffness, arthritis diseases, lateral epicondylitis, ligament reconstruction, and elbow trauma. However, data on the true prevalence and characteristics of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation after elbow arthroscopy are limited.

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence, timing, locational distribution, and risk factors of HO after elbow arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Data on 205 patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy by a single senior elbow surgeon at a single institution between May 2011 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were evaluated at 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months, and then annually after surgery or more frequently if HO developed, with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative follow-up. Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral elbow radiographs were taken at 2 weeks to rule out fracture and at 8 weeks to identify HO. The clinical outcomes were evaluated based on the pain visual analog scale; the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores before and after surgery. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors affecting HO prevalence.

RESULTS

Thirteen (12 male, 1 female) of 205 (6.3%) patients developed HO, with 10 (76.9%) with HO that formed on the medial compartment of the elbow. Ten (76.9%) patients were diagnosed at 8 weeks after arthroscopic surgery, 1 (7.7%) at 6 months after surgery, and 2 (15.4%) at 12 months after surgery. HO was not found at 2 weeks after surgery in any patient. The mean follow-up time was 3.5 years (range, 1.0-11.8 years). Eleven asymptomatic patients were treated nonoperatively, and 2 symptomatic patients underwent HO excision arthroscopically or had a combination of open surgery and arthroscopy. Age was a protective factor for HO formation (odds ratio [OR], 0.953; 95% CI, 0.910-0.999; P = .047). The risk factors for HO formation were tourniquet time (OR, 1.042; 95% CI, 1.019-1.065; P < .001) and surgical time (OR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.011-1.041; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among 205 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy, HO was a minor complication of elbow arthroscopy, with a prevalence rate of 6.3%, and was usually located on the medial compartment of the elbow. Although the presence of HO may not affect the clinical outcomes in most patients, it should be carefully monitored for a minimum of 8 weeks postoperatively. Younger age, longer tourniquet time, and longer surgical time contributed to HO formation after elbow arthroscopy.

Radiologically severe osteoarthritis is related to worse clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty in primary elbow osteoarthritis at medium-term follow-up: a retrospective cohort study

HYPOTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) at medium-term follow-up according to the radiologic severity of primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA) and assess serial changes in clinical outcomes in each group.

METHODS

Patients treated from January 2010 to April 2019 with arthroscopic OCA for primary elbow OA with a minimum of 3 years' follow-up were retrospectively assessed regarding range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) preoperatively, at short-term follow-up (3-12 months postoperatively), and at medium-term follow-up (≥3 years after surgery). Preoperative computed tomography was performed to evaluate the radiologic severity of OA using the Kwak classification. Clinical outcomes were compared according to the radiologic severity of OA by their absolute values and the number of patients achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Serial changes in the clinical outcomes in each subgroup were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 43 patients, 14, 18, and 11 were classified as the stage I, II, and III groups, respectively; the mean follow-up duration was 71.3 ± 28.9 months, and the mean age was 56.5 ± 7.2 years. At medium-term follow-up, the stage I group had a better ROM arc (stage I, 114° ± 14°; stage II, 100° ± 23°; and stage III, 97° ± 20°; P = .067) and VAS pain score (stage I, 0.9 ± 1.3; stage II, 1.8 ± 2.1; and stage III, 2.4 ± 2.1; P = .168) than the stage II and III groups without reaching statistical significance, whereas the stage I group had a significantly better MEPS (stage I, 93.2 ± 7.5; stage II, 84.7 ± 11.9; and stage III, 78.6 ± 15.2; P = .017) than the stage III group. The percentages of patients achieving the PASS for the ROM arc (P = .684) and VAS pain score (P = .398) were comparable between the 3 groups; however, the percentage achieving the PASS for the MEPS was significantly higher in the stage I group than in the stage III group (100.0% vs. 54.5%, P = .016). During serial assessment, all clinical outcomes tended to improve at the short-term follow-up. Compared with the short-term period, the ROM arc tended to decrease at the medium-term follow-up whereas the VAS pain score and MEPS overall did not show significant changes.

CONCLUSION

After arthroscopic OCA, the stage I group showed an overall better ROM arc and pain score than the stage II and III groups at medium-term follow-up, whereas the stage I group showed a significantly better MEPS and higher percentage of patients achieving the PASS for the MEPS than the stage III group.

Evaluation of a New MRI-Based Classification of Graft Status After Superior Capsule Reconstruction

Background

A classification system for the graft state after superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has not been described previously.

Purpose

To introduce a new, MRI-based classification system for graft integrity after SCR and to evaluate the system according to postoperative outcomes.

Study Design

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Method

Included were 62 consecutive patients who underwent SCR using autologous fascia lata graft between January 2013 and April 2021. Postoperative outcomes were assessed (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, Constant score, pain visual analog scale [pVAS], range of motion [ROM], acromiohumeral distance [AHD], Hamada grade). Graft status was classified by 2 orthopaedic surgeons on postoperative MRI in accordance with the signal intensity and the presence or extent of the tear, as follows: type 1 (hypointense signal without tear), type 2 (hyperintense signal without tear), type 3 (partial-thickness tear), type 4 (full-thickness tear with partial continuity), and type 5 (full-thickness tear with complete discontinuity). Intra- and interobserver agreement were assessed using Cohen kappa. The correlation between postoperative outcomes (ASES score, Constant score, pVAS, ROM, AHD, and Hamada grade) and the SCR graft classification system was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient, and the outcomes were compared according to classification type.

Results

Patients were classified according to the new system as follows: type 1 (n = 15), type 2 (n = 20), type 3 (n = 7), type 4 (n = 8), and type 5 (n = 12). There was excellent interobserver agreement (κ = 0.819) and intraobserver agreement (κ = 0.937 and 0.919). The classification system showed a moderate to high correlation with the ASES score (r = -0.451; P = .001), pVAS (r = 0.359; P = .005), AHD (r = -0.642; P < .001), and Hamada grade (r = 0.414; P < .001). Patients classified as having types 1 and 2 showed better outcomes in terms of ASES score, pVAS, ROM, and AHD compared with type 5 patients (P ≤ .021 for all).

Conclusion

The new classification system was highly reproducible and showed clinical utility for both radiological and clinical evaluation after SCR.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Primary Rotator Cuff Repair in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (aSCR) has emerged as a treatment option for managing massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) given the unpredictable results after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). Yet, few comparative studies of aSCR and aRCR have been conducted.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between aRCR and aSCR in patients with MRCT.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 163 cases of MRCT from 2010 to 2020 with follow-up ≥2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 102 had aRCR and 61 had aSCR using fascia lata autograft. Propensity score matching was used to select controls matched for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant score, pain visual analog scale (pVAS) score, range of motion (ROM), tear size, global fatty degeneration index, and acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Last, 33 cases in each group were selected after propensity score matching. Radiological assessment was conducted using serial postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Pre- and postoperative findings-including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pVAS, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant scores and ROM-were assessed to compare clinical outcomes. For radiological outcomes, global fatty degeneration index, AHD, and healing rate were evaluated. Healing failure was defined as Sugaya classification IV or V in the aRCR group, as compared with a full-thickness tear of the graft in the aSCR group, which corresponded to Sugaya classification IV or V.

RESULTS

Postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved at the final follow-up in both groups. In the aSCR group, postoperative forward flexion, pVAS, and AHD were significantly improved as compared with the aRCR group (mean, 161° vs 148° [P = .02]; 1.03 vs 1.64 [P = .047]; 7.00 vs 5.23 mm [P < .001], respectively). The healing rate was 20 of 33 (60.6%) for aRCR and 29 of 33 (87.9%) for aSCR (P = .022).

CONCLUSION

aSCR and aRCR are effective and reliable treatment options for MRCT. However, when compared with aRCR, aSCR showed improved clinical outcomes, including pVAS score, postoperative ROM, and favorable radiological findings, including AHD and a higher healing rate.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Arthroscopic Osteocapsular Arthroplasty in Primary Elbow Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic osteocapsular arthroplasty (OCA) achieves significant medium-term outcomes in patients with primary elbow osteoarthritis (OA); however, outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA are not well known.

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes after revision arthroscopic OCA as compared with those after primary surgery in patients with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic OCA attributed to primary elbow OA between January 2010 and July 2020 were enrolled. Range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were assessed. Operation time and complications were assessed by chart review. Clinical outcomes between the primary and revision surgery groups were compared, and subgroup analysis for radiologically severe OA was performed.

RESULTS

Data from 61 patients were analyzed (primary, n = 53; revision, n = 8). The mean ± SD age was 56.3 ± 8.5 and 54.3 ± 8.9 years in the primary and revision groups, respectively. The primary group had significantly better ROM arcs preoperatively (89.9°± 20.3° vs 71.3°± 22.3°; P = .021) and postoperatively (112.4°± 17.1° vs 96.9°± 16.5°; P = .019) than the revision group; however, the degree of improvement was comparable (P = .445). Postoperative VAS pain score (P = .164) and MEPS (P = .581) were comparable between the groups, as were the degrees of improvement in VAS pain score (P = .691) and MEPS (P = .604). The revision group required a significantly longer operative time than the primary group (P = .004) and had a nonsignificant higher complication rate (P = .065). Subgroup analysis showed that radiologically severe cases in the primary group had significantly better preoperative (P = .010) and postoperative (P = .030) ROM arcs than the revision group and a comparable postoperative VAS pain score (P = .155) and MEPS (P = .658).

CONCLUSION

Revision arthroscopic OCA is a favorable treatment option for primary elbow OA with recurrent symptoms. Postoperative ROM arc was worse after revision surgery as compared with primary surgery; however, the degree of improvement was comparable. Postoperative VAS pain score and MEPS were comparable with primary surgery.