CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2020; 55(06): 742-747
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698803
Artigo Original
Ombro e cotovelo

O padrão da rotura do supraespinal afeta os resultados do reparo artroscópico?[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
Eduardo Angeli Malavolta
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Fernando Brandão Andrade-Silva
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
André Lange Canhos
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Mauro Emilio Conforto Gracitelli
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Arnaldo Amado Ferreira Neto
1   Shoulder and Elbow Group, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a influência do padrão da rotura do supraespinal nas avaliações funcionais pré e pós-operatória.

Métodos Estudo de coorte retrospectivo, comparando pacientes com rotura do supraespinal em crescente versus em L ou U. Incluímos pacientes submetidos ao reparo artroscópico completo do supraespinal. Não incluímos pacientes com reparo dos tendões do subescapular ou infraespinal, aqueles submetidos a cirurgia aberta, ou aqueles nos quais foi obtido apenas o reparo parcial. As escalas clínicas utilizadas foram The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (ASES) e Modified-University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale (UCLA), aplicadas uma semana antes e 24 meses após o procedimento.

Resultados Analisamos 167 ombros (de 163 pacientes). No pré-operatório, a escala da ASES demonstrou ser significativamente superior no padrão em crescente (43,5 ± 17,6 versus 37,7 ± 13,8; p = 0,034). A escala da UCLA teve o mesmo padrão (15,2 ± 4,6 versus 13,5 ± 3,6; p = 0,028). No pós-operatório, entretanto, não ocorreu diferença significativa. De acordo com a escala da ASES, roturas em crescente tiveram 83,7 ± 18,7 pontos, e as roturas em L ou U, 82,9 ± 20,1 (p = 0,887). Respectivamente, os valores foram de 30,9 ± 4,9 e 30,5 ± 5,6 (p = 0,773) pela escala da UCLA.

Conclusão As roturas em crescente e em L ou U do supraespinal apresentam resultados funcionais pós-operatórios semelhantes. No pré-operatório, os resultados funcionais são superiores nas roturas em crescente.

* Trabalho desenvolvido no Grupo de Ombro e Cotovelo, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brasil.




Publication History

Received: 13 December 2018

Accepted: 31 July 2019

Article published online:
19 December 2019

© 2020. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 
  • References

  • 1 Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T. et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19 (01) 116-120
  • 2 Checchia SL, Santos PD, Miyazaki AN. et al. Avaliação dos resultados obtidos na reparação artroscópica das lesões do manguito rotador. Rev Bras Ortop 2005; 40 (05) 229-238
  • 3 Godinho GG, França FO, Freitas JMA. et al. Avaliação da integridade anatômica por exame de ultrassom e funcional pelo índice de Constant & Murley do manguito rotador após reparo artroscópico. Rev Bras Ortop 2010; 45 (02) 174-180
  • 4 Veado MA, Almeida Filho IA, Duarte RG, Leitão I. Avaliação funcional do reparo artroscópico das lesões completas do manguito rotador associado a acromioplastia. Rev Bras Ortop 2008; 43 (11-12): 505-512
  • 5 McElvany MD, McGoldrick E, Gee AO, Neradilek MB, Matsen III FA. Rotator cuff repair: published evidence on factors associated with repair integrity and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (02) 491-500
  • 6 Shin YK, Ryu KN, Park JS, Jin W, Park SY, Yoon YC. Predictive Factors of Retear in Patients With Repaired Rotator Cuff Tear on Shoulder MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 210 (01) 134-141
  • 7 Rashid MS, Cooper C, Cook J. et al. Increasing age and tear size reduce rotator cuff repair healing rate at 1 year. Acta Orthop 2017; 88 (06) 606-611
  • 8 Kim YK, Jung KH, Kim JW, Kim US, Hwang DH. Factors affecting rotator cuff integrity after arthroscopic repair for medium-sized or larger cuff tears: a retrospective cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27 (06) 1012-1020
  • 9 Park JS, Park HJ, Kim SH, Oh JH. Prognostic Factors Affecting Rotator Cuff Healing After Arthroscopic Repair in Small to Medium-sized Tears. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (10) 2386-2392
  • 10 Nho SJ, Brown BS, Lyman S, Adler RS, Altchek DW, MacGillivray JD. Prospective analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prognostic factors affecting clinical and ultrasound outcome. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18 (01) 13-20
  • 11 Le BTN, Wu XL, Lam PH, Murrell GAC. Factors predicting rotator cuff retears: an analysis of 1000 consecutive rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (05) 1134-1142
  • 12 Jeong HY, Kim HJ, Jeon YS, Rhee YG. Factors Predictive of Healing in Large Rotator Cuff Tears: Is It Possible to Predict Retear Preoperatively?. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (07) 1693-1700
  • 13 Gulotta LV, Nho SJ, Dodson CC, Adler RS, Altchek DW, MacGillivray JD. HSS Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Registry. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs at 5 years: part II--prognostic factors for clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (06) 941-946
  • 14 Pécora JO, Malavolta EA, Assunção JH, Gracitelli MEC, Martins JPS, Ferreira Jr AA. Prognostic factors for clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair. Acta Ortop Bras 2015; 23 (03) 146-149
  • 15 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 2009; 25 (01) 30-39
  • 16 Millett PJ, Espinoza C, Horan MP. et al. Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: a propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (10) 1399-1408
  • 17 Jenssen KK, Lundgreen K, Madsen JE, Kvakestad R, Dimmen S. Prognostic Factors for Functional Outcome After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Cohort Study With 2-Year Follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (14) 3463-3470
  • 18 Fermont AJ, Wolterbeek N, Wessel RN, Baeyens JP, de Bie RA. Prognostic factors for recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prognostic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (08) 1249-1256
  • 19 Burkhart SS, Lo IKY. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14 (06) 333-346
  • 20 Park JY, Jung SW, Jeon SH, Cho HW, Choi JH, Oh KS. Arthroscopic repair of large U-shaped rotator cuff tears without margin convergence versus repair of crescent- or L-shaped tears. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (01) 103-111
  • 21 Watson S, Allen B, Robbins C, Bedi A, Gagnier JJ, Miller B. Does the Rotator Cuff Tear Pattern Influence Clinical Outcomes After Surgical Repair?. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (03) 2325967118763107
  • 22 Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU. et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3 (06) 347-352
  • 23 Knaut LA, Moser ADL, Melo SdeA, Richards RR. Translation and cultural adaptation to the portuguese language of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder assessment form (ASES) for evaluation of shoulder function. Rev Bras Reumatol 2010; 50 (02) 176-189
  • 24 Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68 (08) 1136-1144
  • 25 Oku EC, Andrade AP, Stadiniky SP, Carrera EF. Tradução e adaptação cultural do Modified-University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale para a língua portuguesa. Rev Bras Reumatol 2006; 46 (04) 246-252
  • 26 Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (304) 78-83
  • 27 Gagnier JJ, Robbins C, Bedi A, Carpenter JE, Miller BS. Establishing minimally important differences for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27 (05) e160-e166
  • 28 Russell RD, Knight JR, Mulligan E, Khazzam MS. Structural integrity after rotator cuff repair does not correlate with patient function and pain: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (04) 265-271