Kronik Rotator Manşet Yırtıklarının Cerrahi Tedavisinde Klinik Sonuçlarımız: Retrospektif Karşılaştırmalı Çalışma

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 114 - 118, 31.08.2021

Anıl Gülcü , Serkan Aydın , Ahmet Aslan

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, tam kat rotator manşet yırtıklarının cerrahi tedavisinde artroskopik yardımlı mini açık yöntem ile tam artroskopik yöntemin klinik sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Kliniğimizde 2017-2018 yılları arasında tam kat rotator manşet yırtığı nedeniyle cerrahi tedavisi yapılan ve en az bir yıl takip edilen 42 hastanın sonuçları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastaların tanısı klinik fizik muayene ve manyetik rezonans görüntüleme ile konuldu. Hastalar tedavi yöntemine göre iki gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1 (Tam Artroskopik) 25 hastandan ve Grup 2 (Artroskopik yardımlı mini açık) 17 hastadan oluşmaktaydı. Hastaların klinik sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesinde UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) ve ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) skorları kullanıldı. Rotator manşet yırtıkları boyutuna göre küçük,orta, geniş olarak sınıflandırıldı. Hastaların hepsine hastanemizde aynı fizik tedavi protokolü uygulandı. Gruplar arasında, cinsiyet, taraf, ek patoloji, ameliyat ve hastanede kalış süreleri bakımından anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı(sırasıyla p=0.952; p=0.716; p=0.952; p=0.88 ve p=0.138). Rotator manşet yırtığının boyutunda (küçük, orta, geniş yırtık) gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık bulunamadı(p=0.158). Grupların preoperatif, 6. ay ve 1. yıl UCLA skorlarında istatistiksel olarak benzer bulundu (sırasıyla p=0.979; p=0.678 ve p=0.676). Benzer şekilde ASES skorlarında da gruplar arası anlamlı farklılık bulunamadı (sırasıyla p=0.083; p=0.154 ve p=0.795). Diğer yandan grup içi değerlendirmede preoperatif UCLA skorlarına göre, postoperatif 6. ay ve 1. yıl skorları istatistiksel olarak daha iyiydi (p<0.001). Yine preoperatif ASES skorlarına göre, postoperatif 6. ay ve 1. yıl skorları istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı.(p<0.001). Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, hastaların her iki tedavi yönteminden de fayda gördüğü ve artroskopik yardımlı mini açık ve sadece artroskopik yöntemin sonuçlarının benzer olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Artroskopik Cerrahi, Mini Açık Teknik, Rotator Manşet, Tam Kat Yırtık

Supporting Institution

HERHANGİ BİR KURUM YOKTUR.

Surgical Treatment Outcome of Chronic Rotator Cuff Tears: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical results of the arthroscopic assisted Mini open method and the Arthroscopic method in the surgical treatment of full thickness rotator cuff tears. The results of 42 patients, who underwent surgical treatment and followed for at least one year due to full-length rotator cuff tear in our clinic between 2017-2018, were evaluated retrospectively. The diagnosis of the patients was made by clinical physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging. The patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment method. Group 1 (Full Arthroscopic) consisted of 25 patients and Group 2 (Arthroscopic assisted Mini open) consisted of 17 patients. UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) and ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) scores were used to evaluate the clinical results of the patients. Rotator cuff tears were classified as small, medium or large according to their size. The same physical therapy protocol was applied to all patients in our hospital. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of gender, side, additional pathology (p=0.952; p=0.622; p=0.952; p=0.88 and p=0.138 respectively). There is no significant difference in the size of the rotator cuff tear (small, medium, large tear) between the groups (p=0.158). There was no statistical difference in preoperative, 6th and 1st year UCLA scores of the groups (p=0.979, p=0.678 and p=0.676, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the groups in ASES scores (p=0.083; p=0.154 and p=0.795, respectively). On the other hand, postoperative 6th and 1st year scores were statistically better than preoperative UCLA scores in intragroup evaluation (p<0.001). Also, according to preoperative ASES scores, postoperative 6th month and 1st year scores were found statistically higher (p<0.001). The results of this study show that patients were benefited from both two treatment methods and it was detected that arthroscopic-assisted mini-open and full arthroscopic method have similar outcomes.

Keywords

Arthroscopic Surgery, Full Thickness Tear, Mini Open Technique, Rotator Cuff

References

• 1. Büker N, Kitiş A, Akkaya S, Akkaya N. Comparison of theresults of supervisedphysiotherapy program andhome-basedexercise program in patientstreatedwitharthroscopic-assisted mini-openrotatorcuffrepair. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2011;22(3):134-9.
• 2. Daniels SD, Stewart CM, Garvey KD, Brook EM, Higgins LD, Matzkin EG. Sex-BasedDifferences in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(11):2325967119881959.
• 3. Bayam L, Kıran E, Erdem M, Kochai̇ A, Türker M. Rotator Manşet Yırtıklarında Artroskopik Yardımlı Mini Açık ve Artroskopik Tamir Yöntemlerinin Klinik ve Radyolojik Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması. Sakarya Tıp Derg. 2018; 8(4): 788-97.
• 4. Karaman O, Karakus O, Saygi B. A comparison of full arthroscopic and arthroscopic-assisted mini-open repair methods in rotator cuff tears 1-3 cm in size. J Orthop. 2018;15(3):894-8.
• 5. Çelik H, Seçkin MF, Akman Ş. Rotator manşet cerrahisinde komplikasyonlar. Okmeydanı Tıp Derg. 2017;33:155-63.
• 6. Kaya İ, Uğraş A, Ertürk A, et al.Artroskopikrotator manşet tamiri. Şişli Etfal Hast Tıp Bül. 2013; 47(1): 21-4.
• 7. Ati̇k A. The Role of Arthroscopic Decompression in Subacromial Impingement Syndrome. Acta Medica Alanya. 2019; 248-53.
• 8. Liu J, Fan L, Zhu Y, Yu H, Xu T, Li G. Comparison of clinical outcomes in all-arthroscopicversus mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears: A randomized clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(11):e6322.
• 9. Iyengar JJ, Samagh SP, Schairer W, et al. Current trends in rotator cuff repair: surgical technique, setting, and cost. Arthroscopy. 2014; 30(3): 284–8.
• 10. Van der Zwaal P, Thomassen BJ, Nieuwenhuijse MJ, et al. Clinical outcome in all-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair in small to medium-sized tears: a randomized controlled trial in 100 patients with 1-year followup. Arthroscopy. 2013 ;29(2):266-73.
• 11. Zhang Z, Gu B, Zhu W, Zhu L, Li Q. Arthroscopic versus mini operotator cuff repair: a prospective, randomized study with 24-month follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014; 24(6): 845–50.
• 12. Nazari G, MacDermid JC, Bryant D, Dewan N, Athwal GS. Effects of arthroscopic vs. mini-open rotator cuff repair on function, pain&range of motion. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoSOne. 2019;14(10):e0222953.
• 13. Morse K, Davis D, Afra R, KrallKaye E, Schepsis A, Voloshin I. Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36(9):1824-8.
• 14. Youm T, Murray DH, Kubiak EN, Rokito AS, Zuckerman JD. Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):455-9.
• 15. Nho SJ, Shindle MK, Sherman SL, Freedman KB, Lyman S, MacGillivray JD. Systematic review of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and mini-open rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(3):127-36.
• 16. Jancuska J, Matthews J, Miller T, Kluczynski MA, Bisson LJ. A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on theTopic of the Rotato rCuff. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(9):2325967118797891.
• 17. Barnes LA, Kim HM, Caldwell JM, et al. Satisfaction, function and repair integrity after arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(2):245‐9.
• 18. Huang R, Wang S, Wang Y, Qin X, Sun Y. Systematic Review of All-Arthroscopic Versus Mini-Open Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 22857.
• 19. Hui YJ, Teo AQ, Sharma S, Tan BH, Kumar VP. Immediate costs of mini-open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in an Asian population. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25(1):2309499016684496.
• 20. Ji X, Bi C, Wang F, Wang Q. Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):118-24.
• 21. Köse KC, Tezen E, Cebesoy O, et al. Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuf frepair: comparison of the operative costs and the clinical outcomes. 2008; 25(3):249-59.
• 22. Churchill RS, Ghorai JK. Total cost and operating room time comparison of rotator cuff repair techniques at low, intermediate, and high volume centers: mini-open versus all-arthroscopic. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):716-21.
• 23. Kang L, Henn RF, Tashjian RZ, Green A. Early outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a matched comparison with mini-open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(6):573-82.
• 24. Uğurlar M, Sönmez MM, Uğurlar ÖY, Sarı A, Ere OT. Arthroscopic-Assisted Repair in Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Ruptures: Functional and Radiologic Results of Five-Year Follow-Up. Dicle Med J. 2016;43(2):290-3.
• 25. Ozbaydar MU, Tonbul M, Yurdoğlu C, Yalaman O. Arthroscopic-assisted mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2005;39(2):121-7.
• 26. Kanatlı U, Ayanoğlu T, Ataoğlu MB, et al. Midterm outcomes after arthroscopic repair of partial rotator cuff tears: A retrospective study of correlation between partial tear types and surgical technique. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2020; 54(2): 196-201.