Does Side Dominance Affect the Clinical and Functional Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 106 - 114, 30.04.2020

Erdal Uzun , Abdulhamit Mısır , Ahmert Güney

https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.708230

Öz

Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate the mid-term functional outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) and to define the effect of hand dominance on functional outcomes and re-tear rate.
Methods: Between 2009 and 2015, 160 patients with aRCR (100 females and 60 males) with a minimum 3-year follow-up duration were included in the study. Patients were divided into two main groups according to hand dominance of operated side: Dominant (Group 1) and nondominant (Group 2). Pre- and postoperative functional outcome scores and clinical status of patients were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University at California at Los Angeles Shouder Rating Scale (UCLA) and Constant-Murley score (CMS). Functional scores, and revision rate of patients were compared in terms of hand dominance, patient characteristics and operative features.
Results: The mean follow-up period was 45.5 ± 8.3 months (Range, 36 to 84 months). Mean age at the time of surgery was 59.0 ± 8.3 years in the dominant group and 58.3 ± 9.2 years in the nondominant group (p=0.689). Good to excellent postoperative functional outcomes were obtained regarding VAS, ASES, UCLA and CMS and scores in both groups compared with the baseline (p=0.000). Although dominant group had higher postoperative functional scores compared to nondominant group, improvement in functional scores were similar between groups (p<0.05). Retear was noted in 16 patients (7 patients, 7.2% in dominant group and 9 patients, 14.2% in nondominant group, p=0.145). Side dominancy was not associated with retear development (p=0.145). However, tear size was found to be associated with re-tear development (p=0.025).
Conclusions: This study suggests that side dominancy has no significant impact on improvement in clinical scores and re-tear development after aRCR in mid-term. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rotator cuff, operation side, dominance, outcomes, functional, clinical

Kaynakça

• Ajrawat P, Dwyer T, Almasri M, Veillette C, Romeo A, Leroux T, et al. Bone Marrow Stimulation Decreases Retear Rates after Primary Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2019; 28(4): 782–91.
• Berglund DD, Kurowicki J, Giveans MR, Horn B, Levy JC. Comorbidity Effect on Speed of Recovery after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. JSES open access 2018; 2(1): 60–68.
• Charousset C, Duranthon LD, Grimberg J, Bellaiche L. Arthro-C-scan analysis of rotator cuff tears healing after arthroscopic repair: analysis of predictive factors in a consecutive series of 167 arthroscopic repairs. Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l’appareil moteur 2006; 92(3): 223–33.
• Chung SW, Park H, Kwon J, Choe GY, Kim SH, Oh JH. Effect of Hypercholesterolemia on Fatty Infiltration and Quality of Tendon-to-Bone Healing in a Rabbit Model of a Chronic Rotator Cuff Tear: Electrophysiological, Biomechanical, and Histological Analyses. The American journal of sports medicine 2016; 44(5): 1153–64.
• Constant CR, Murley AH. A Clinical Method of Functional Assessment of the Shoulder. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1987; (214): 160–64.
• Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Nwachukwu BU, Cabarcas BC, Cole BJ, et al. Establishing Clinically Significant Outcome after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2019; 28(5): 939–48.
• Flurin P-H, Landreau P, Gregory T, Boileau P, Brassart N, Courage O, et al. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness cuff tears: a multicentric retrospective study of 576 cases with anatomical assessment. Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l’appareil moteur 2005;91(S8): 31–42.
• Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The Outcome and Repair Integrity of Completely Arthroscopically Repaired Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2004; 86(2): 219–24. Gasbarro G, Ye J, Newsome H, Jiang K, Wright V, Vyas D, et al. Morphologic Risk Factors in Predicting Symptomatic Structural Failure of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: Tear Size, Location, and Atrophy Matter. Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery: official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association 2016; 32(10): 1947–52.
• Hurley ET, Maye AB, Mullett H. Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses. JBJS reviews 2019; 7(4): e1.
• Kelly MA, Mc Donald CK, Boland A, Groarke PJ, Kaar K. The Effect of Hand Dominance on Functional Outcome Following Single Row Rotator Cuff Repair. The open orthopaedics journal 2017; 11: 562–66.
• Kim I-B, Kim M-W. Risk Factors for Retear After Arthroscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears Using the Suture Bridge Technique: Classification System. Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery: official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association 2016. : 32(11): 2191–2200.
• Kim Y-K, Jung K-H, Kim J-W, Kim U-S, Hwang D-H. Factors Affecting Rotator Cuff Integrity after Arthroscopic Repair for Medium-Sized or Larger Cuff Tears: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2018; 27(6): 1012–20.
• King GJ, Richards RR, Zuckerman JD, Blasier R, Dillman C, Friedman RJ, et al. A Standardized Method for Assessment of Elbow Function. Research Committee, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.” Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 1999 ;8(4): 351–54.
• Lafosse L, Brzoska R, Toussaint B, Gobezie R. The Outcome and Structural Integrity of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair with Use of the Double-Row Suture Anchor Technique. Surgical Technique. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 90 Suppl 2008; 2: 275–86.
• Le BTN, Wu XL, Lam PH, Murrell GAC. Factors Predicting Rotator Cuff Retears: An Analysis of 1000 Consecutive Rotator Cuff Repairs. The American journal of sports medicine 2014; 42(5): 1134–42.
• Marx RG, Koulouvaris P, Chu SK, Levy BA. Indications for Surgery in Clinical Outcome Studies of Rotator Cuff Repair. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2009; 467(2): 450–56.
• Oh JH, Kim SH, Ji HM, Jo KH, Bin SW, Gong HS. Prognostic Factors Affecting Anatomic Outcome of Rotator Cuff Repair and Correlation with Functional Outcome. Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery: official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association 2009; 25(1): 30–39.
• Oh JH, Kim SH, Kang JY, Oh CH, Gong HS. Effect of Age on Functional and Structural Outcome after Rotator Cuff Repair. The American journal of sports medicine 2010; 38(4): 672–78.
• Park JS, Park HJ, Kim SH, Oh JH. Prognostic Factors Affecting Rotator Cuff Healing After Arthroscopic Repair in Small to Medium-Sized Tears. The American journal of sports medicine 2015; 43(10): 2386–92.
• Placzek JD, Lukens SC, Badalanmenti S, Roubal PJ, Freeman DC, Walleman KM, et al. Shoulder Outcome Measures: A Comparison of 6 Functional Tests. The American journal of sports medicine 2004; 32(5): 1270–77.
• Saccomanno MF, Sircana G, Cazzato G, Donati F, Randelli P, Milano G. Prognostic Factors Influencing the Outcome of Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review. Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy: official journal of the ESSKA 2016; 24(12): 3809–19.
• Sahni V, Narang AM. Review Article: Risk Factors for Poor Outcome Following Surgical Treatment for Rotator Cuff Tear. Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) 2016; 24(2): 265–68.
• Savoie FH 3rd, Zunkiewicz M, Field LD, Replogle WH, O’Brien MJ. A Comparison of Functional Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Revision Arthroscopic Repair of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears with and without Arthroscopic Suprascapular Nerve Release. Open access journal of sports medicine 2016; 7: 129–34.
• Sayampanathan AA, Andrew THC. Systematic Review on Risk Factors of Rotator Cuff Tears. Journal of orthopaedic surgery (Hong Kong) 2017; 25(1): 2309499016684318.
• Shim SB, Jeong JY, Yum TH, Yoo JC. A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Risk Factors for Medium-Sized Rotator Cuff Tear in Patients Younger Than 50 Years of Age. Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery: official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association 2018; 34(11): 2971–79. Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Repair Integrity and Functional Outcome after Arthroscopic Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair. A Prospective Outcome Study. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2007; 89(5): 953–60.
• Tashjian RZ, Hollins AM, Kim H-M, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Steger-May K, et al. Factors Affecting Healing Rates after Arthroscopic Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair. The American journal of sports medicine 2010; 38(12): 2435–42.
• Tashjian RZ, Shin J, Broschinsky K, Yeh C-C, Martin B, Chalmers PN, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and Visual Analog Scale Pain Scores after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.2020; 1058-2746(19):30797-9.
• Wang VM, Wang FC, McNickle AG, Friel NA, Yanke AB, Chubinskaya S, et al. Medial versus Lateral Supraspinatus Tendon Properties: Implications for Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair. The American journal of sports medicine 2010; 38(12): 2456–63.
• Woollard JD, Bost JE, Piva SR, Kelley Fitzgerald G, Rodosky MW, Irrgang JJ. The Ability of Preoperative Factors to Predict Patient-Reported Disability Following Surgery for Rotator Cuff Pathology. Disability and rehabilitation 2017; 39(20): 2087–96.
• Xu S, Chen JY, Lie HME, Hao Y, Lie DTT. Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Oxford, Constant, and UCLA Shoulder Score for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Journal of orthopaedics 2020; 19: 21–27.