A Comparison Between Preoperative and Intraoperative Measurement and Classification of the Size of Rotator Cuff Tears^[*]

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the agreement in tear size obtained through preoperative imaging and intraoperative measurement, and to determine the accuracy of preoperative imaging in the classification of tear size and identification of tears in each rotator cuff tendon.

Methods Data from 44 patients recruited to a randomized controlled trial were reviewed retrospectively. Size and location of the rotator cuff tears were confirmed by either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging scans preoperatively and evaluated during surgery. A t-test and Bland and Altman plot were used to determine the agreement between the preoperative and intraoperative measurements. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for tear size and involvement of the rotator cuff tendon.

Results There was good agreement in terms of the measurements (91%) and classification (89%) of the tear size preoperatively and during surgery. When classifying tear size, the sensitivity and PPV were high for medium-sized tears (100%) and lower for large tears (75%), reflecting that all medium-sized tears but not all large tears were identified preoperatively. For the preoperative identification of the tears, the sensitivity and PPV were highest for the supraspinatus (84%), with progressively lower sensitivities and PPV for the infraspinatus (57%), subscapularis (17%) and teres minor (0%).

Conclusions Through preoperative imaging, the measurement or classification of the tear size can be accurately performed. Where there is disagreement, it is unclear whether the tear size is either underestimated on the scan or overestimated during surgery. The high sensitivity demonstrates that a supraspinatus tear is usually detected by scan. The lower sensitivities for the infraspinatus and subscapularis indicate that the identification of tears in these tendons is less accurate.

Keywords

rotator cuff tears - shoulder - magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasonography

• Referências

• 1 Spencer Jr EE, Dunn WR, Wright RW. et al; Shoulder Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network. Interobserver agreement in the classification of rotator cuff tears using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (01) 99-103
• 2 DeOrio JK, Cofield RH. Results of a second attempt at surgical repair of a failed initial rotator-cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66 (04) 563-567
• 3 Chalmers PN, Tashjian RZ. Patch Augmentation in Rotator Cuff Repair. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2020; 13 (05) 561-571
• 4 Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Takwoingi Y, Johnston RV, Hanchard NC, Faloppa F. Magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and ultrasonography for assessing rotator cuff tears in people with shoulder pain for whom surgery is being considered. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (09) CD009020
• 5 Littlewood C, Bateman M, Butler-Walley S. et al. Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A multi-centre pilot & feasibility randomised controlled trial (RaCeR). [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 11] Clin Rehabil 2021; 35 (06) 829-839
• 6 Lee YH, Kim AH, Suh JS. Magnetic resonance visualization of surgical classification of rotator cuff tear: comparison with three-dimensional shoulder magnetic resonance arthrography at 3.0 T. Clin Imaging 2014; 38 (06) 858-863
• 7 Yamamoto N, Mineta M, Kawakami J, Sano H, Itoi E. Risk Factors for Tear Progression in Symptomatic Rotator Cuff Tears: A Prospective Study of 174 Shoulders. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (11) 2524-2531
• 8 Fischer CA, Weber MA, Neubecker C, Bruckner T, Tanner M, Zeifang F. Ultrasound vs. MRI in the assessment of rotator cuff structure prior to shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop 2015; 12 (01) 23-30