Article

Massive Rotator Cuff Tears in Patients Older Than Sixty-five: Indications for Cuff Repair versus Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

RESULTS

PREOPERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Of the 187 shoulders in the study group, 95 had RCR and 92 had rTSA. Demographic information and preoperative variables for both groups are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Patients in the RCR group had greater preoperative forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation and higher preoperative functional scores than those in the rTSA group. Patients in the rTSA group were older and more likely to be female than those in the RCR group. More patients in the rTSA group had undergone prior RCR compared with those in the RCR group. Each of these differences was statistically significant. Subjective pain scores, BMI, and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups.

Table 1. Patient demographics

RCR

rTSA

P value

Age (yr; mean ± SD)

71 ± 5

74 ± 6

<.0001

Gender

*male (no.; %)

*female (no.; %)

57 (60%)

38 (40%)

30 (33%)

62 (67%)

<.0001

BMI (mean ± SD)

28.5 ± 4.4

28.1 ± 4.5

.578

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; RCR, rotator cuff repair; rTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 2. Preoperative variables

RCR (n=95)

rTSA (n=92)

P value

Radiographic parameters

AB interval

9 ± 3

5 ± 3

<.0001

Humeral escape

14.1%

50.6%

<.0001

Hamada 1

76.1%

15.6%

<.0001

Hamada 2

13.0%

50.6%

Hamada 3

10.9%

33.8%

Goutallier grade 1

7.8%

19.3%

.227

Goutallier grade 2

66.7%

52.6%

Goutallier grade 3

21.6%

19.3%

Goutallier grade 4

3.9%

8.8%

Clinical measures

Preop FE

113 ± 50

57 ± 34

<.0001

Preop AB

97 ± 45

53 ± 35

<.0001

Preop ER

42 ± 25

32 ± 28

.029

Preop IR

2.9 ± 1.6

2.6 ± 1.8

.247

Preop pain

5.7 ± 2.3

5.6 ± 2.5

.927

Preop ASES

44 ± 17

39 ± 16

.04

Preop SST

3.1 ± 2.6

1.9 ± 1.7

.001

Patients parameters

Previous cuff surgery

6.3%

35.9%

<.0001

Comorbidity count

1.7 ± 1.4

2.1 ± 2.7

.126

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; preop, preoperative; SST, simple shoulder test.

Radiographically, patients selected to undergo rTSA had a smaller AHI (4.8 vs 8.7, P < .0001) and more evidence of superior subluxation (50.6% vs 14.1%, P < .0001) than those in the RCR group. Average Hamada grade was 1.4 ± 0.7 and 2.2 ± 0.7 for the RCR and rTSA groups, respectively (P < .0001). Average Goutallier grade was similar between the groups (2.2 ± 0.6 for RCR vs 2.2 ± 0.8 for rTSA, P =.227), and 25.5% of the RCR group had Grade 3 or 4 atrophy compared with 28.1% of the rTSA group.

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES

The average follow-up time was 44 months for RCR and 47 months for rTSA. Patients in the RCR and rTSA groups were highly satisfied with the surgery (8.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.2 ± 2.6, P = .461) and had significantly increased range of motion in all planes and improved functional scores (Table 3). The rTSA group had greater net improvement in forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation than the RCR group. Both groups demonstrated similar improvement in ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores.

Table 3. Postoperative outcomes

RCR (n=95)

P value

rTSA (n=92)

P value

Preoperative

Postoperative

Preoperative

Postoperative

FE

113 ± 50

166 ± 26

<.0001

57 ± 34

136 ± 46

<.0001

AB

97 ± 45

155 ± 37

<.0001

53 ± 35

129 ± 44

<.0001

ER

42 ± 25

48 ± 20

.033

32 ± 28

57 ± 32

<.0001

IR

2.9 ± 1.6

4.6 ± 1.6

<.0001

2.6 ± 1.8

4.7 ± 2.4

<.0001

VAS pain

5.7 ± 2.3

1.7 ± 2.4

<.0001

5.6 ± 2.5

1.6 ± 2.5

<.0001

ASES

44 ± 17

83 ± 18

<.0001

39 ± 16

77 ± 22

<.0001

SST

3.1 ± 2.6

9.3 ± 2.9

<.0001

1.9 ± 1.7

7.1 ± 3.4

<.0001

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS – visual analog score.

In the RCR group, 5 patients (5.3%) required reoperation: 3 patients underwent conversion to rTSA, 1 patient underwent biceps tenotomy with subacromial decompression, and 1 patient underwent arthroscopic irrigation and debridement for a postoperative Propionibacterium acnes infection. In the rTSA group, 2 patients (2.2%) required reoperation: 1 patient underwent open reduction internal fixation for a scapula fracture that failed conservative management, and 1 patient had an open irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange for an acute postoperative infection of unknown source.

DISCUSSION

Massive, retracted rotator cuff tears are a common and difficult problem.1 The treatment options are numerous and depend on a variety of preoperative factors including patient-specific characteristics and factors specific to the tear. For certain patients, nonoperative management may be a reasonable first step, as an MCT does not necessarily preclude painless, functional shoulder motion. Elderly, lower demand individuals have been shown to do well with physical rehabilitation.18 Similarly, for the same category of elderly patients who do not respond to conservative measures, arthroscopic tendon debridement with or without subacromial decompression and/or biceps tenotomy may be effective.1,19 This technique has been described as “limited goals surgery;” despite some mixed results in the literature, multiple studies have reported symptomatic and functional improvement after simple debridement.2,19–21The consensus among several authors has been that this procedure continues to play a role for elderly, low-demand patients whose functional goals are limited and whose primary complaint is pain.1,2,20

For the majority of patients with MCT who desire pain relief and a restoration of shoulder function, RCR remains the gold standard of treatment and should be the primary aim if feasible. Complete RCR has consistently outperformed both partial repair and debridement in multiple studies in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.10,21,22However, elderly patients with chronic, massive tears, particularly in the setting of muscle atrophy, are at high risk of failure with attempted cuff repair.9,23 Novel techniques such as superior capsular reconstruction and subacromial balloon spacer implantation may offer a minimally invasive method of re-centering the humeral head and stabilizing the glenohumeral joint; however, these new treatment options lack any long-term data in the literature to support their widespread use.24–26 Alternatively, rTSA has been shown to be a reliable option to restore shoulder function in the setting of a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, even in the absence of arthritis.5,27-31

Continue to: The decision-making process...

Pages

Recommended Reading

Ultrasound excels for assessing shoulder dislocation
MDedge Surgery
Case Series Evaluating the Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Scapular Fractures
MDedge Surgery
Subcutaneous Ulnar Nerve Transposition Using Osborne’s Ligament as a Ligamentodermal or Ligamentofascial Sling
MDedge Surgery
Arthroscopically-Guided, Cannulated, Headless Compression Screw Fixation of the Symptomatic Os Acromiale
MDedge Surgery
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques Across the World
MDedge Surgery
Medical Complications and Outcomes After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis
MDedge Surgery
Upper Extremity Injuries in Soccer
MDedge Surgery
Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesion of the Radial Head
MDedge Surgery
The PASTA Bridge – A Repair Technique for Partial Articular-Sided Rotator Cuff Tears: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Construct Strength
MDedge Surgery
Arthroscopic SLAP IIb Repair Using Knot-Tying Versus Knotless Suture Anchors: Is There a Difference?
MDedge Surgery