Table 1.
Literature on cuff integrity at followup after open rotator cuff repair
| Study | Number of patients | Imaging method | Number of tendons involved | Followup (years) | Retear rate (%) | Intact/retear | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute Constant-Murley score (points) | Relative Constant-Murley score (points) | Pain VAS | Flexion strength (kg) | Abduction strength (kg) | External rotation strength (kg) | Fatty degeneration index | ||||||
| Fuchs et al. [10] | 32 | MRI | 1 | 3 | 13 | 83/71 | 0.7/1.8 | 5.4/4.3 | ||||
| Klepps et al. [23] | 32 | MRI | 1 | 31 | 83/74 | 0.7/1.8 | 6.5/4.1 | 8.5/7.5 | ||||
| Gerber et al. [13] | 29 | MRI | Massive | 3 | 41 | 96/70 | SS 1.3/2.8 IS 1.5/2.0 SSC 0.5/1.2 |
|||||
| Goutallier et al. [16] | 30 | CT arthrography | FDI ≤ 2 at surgery | 9 | 3 | 77 | SS 1.2 IS 1.6 SSC 0.9 |
|||||
| Harryman et al. [19] | 89 | Ultrasound | 5 | 35 (30 after primary repair) | Satisfied 96%/70% | 132° | ||||||
| Jost et al. [20] | 65 | MRI | 5 | 3 | 31 | |||||||
| Zumstein et al. [32] | 23 | MRI | 9 | 57 | 81/64 | 95/77 | 5.5/2.6 | |||||
| Knudsen et al. [24] | 31 | MRI | 1 | 2 | 31 | 76/62 | ||||||
| Gazielly et al. [12] | 98 | Ultrasound | 4 | 24 | ||||||||
| Bartl et al. [1] | 25 | MRI | Massive | 6 | 44 | 73 | 2.1 | |||||
| Liem et al. [26] | 19 | MRI | 1 mini-open | 1.5 | 37 | |||||||
| Current study | 67 | MR arthrography | 4 | 19 | 94 | 71/58 | 83/66 | 1.0/1.9 | 5.3/3.1 | 5.0/2.7 | 6.8/4.2 | SS 2.1/4.6 IS 1.8/3.9 SSC 1.2/2.4 |
SS = supraspinatus; IS = infraspinatus; SSC = subscapularis.