Cargando…

Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE: Recurrent tear after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is common. Conservative, and open and arthroscopic revisions, have been advocated to treat these failures. AIM OR OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the different options for managing recurrent rotator cuff tear...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lädermann, Alexandre, Denard, Patrick J, Burkhart, Stephen S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27134759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2015-000027
_version_ 1782429506247589888
author Lädermann, Alexandre
Denard, Patrick J
Burkhart, Stephen S
author_facet Lädermann, Alexandre
Denard, Patrick J
Burkhart, Stephen S
author_sort Lädermann, Alexandre
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Recurrent tear after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is common. Conservative, and open and arthroscopic revisions, have been advocated to treat these failures. AIM OR OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the different options for managing recurrent rotator cuff tears. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search was conducted of level I through 4 studies from January 2000 to October 2015, to identify studies reporting on failed RCR. 10 articles were identified. The overall quality of evidence was very low. FINDINGS: Mid-term to long-term follow-up of patients treated conservatively revealed acceptable results; a persistent defect is a well-tolerated condition that only occasionally requires subsequent surgery. Conservative treatment might be indicated in most patients, particularly in case of posterosuperior involvement and poor preoperative range of motion. Revision surgery might be indicated in a young patient with a repairable lesion, a 3 tendon tear, and in those with involvement of the subscapularis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The current review indicates that arthroscopic revision RCR can lead to improvement in functional outcome despite a high retear rate. Further studies are needed to develop specific rehabilitation in the case of primary rotator cuff failure, to better understand the place of each treatment option, and, in case of repair, to optimise tendon healing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4849215
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48492152016-04-29 Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review Lädermann, Alexandre Denard, Patrick J Burkhart, Stephen S J ISAKOS Systematic Review IMPORTANCE: Recurrent tear after rotator cuff repair (RCR) is common. Conservative, and open and arthroscopic revisions, have been advocated to treat these failures. AIM OR OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the different options for managing recurrent rotator cuff tears. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search was conducted of level I through 4 studies from January 2000 to October 2015, to identify studies reporting on failed RCR. 10 articles were identified. The overall quality of evidence was very low. FINDINGS: Mid-term to long-term follow-up of patients treated conservatively revealed acceptable results; a persistent defect is a well-tolerated condition that only occasionally requires subsequent surgery. Conservative treatment might be indicated in most patients, particularly in case of posterosuperior involvement and poor preoperative range of motion. Revision surgery might be indicated in a young patient with a repairable lesion, a 3 tendon tear, and in those with involvement of the subscapularis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The current review indicates that arthroscopic revision RCR can lead to improvement in functional outcome despite a high retear rate. Further studies are needed to develop specific rehabilitation in the case of primary rotator cuff failure, to better understand the place of each treatment option, and, in case of repair, to optimise tendon healing. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-01 2016-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4849215/ /pubmed/27134759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2015-000027 Text en Copyright © 2016 ISAKOS This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Lädermann, Alexandre
Denard, Patrick J
Burkhart, Stephen S
Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title_full Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title_fullStr Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title_short Management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
title_sort management of failed rotator cuff repair: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27134759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2015-000027
work_keys_str_mv AT ladermannalexandre managementoffailedrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreview
AT denardpatrickj managementoffailedrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreview
AT burkhartstephens managementoffailedrotatorcuffrepairasystematicreview