Abstract
Background:
Bilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is frequently performed in patients with symptomatic bilateral rotator cuff tears.
Purpose:
To compare patient-reported outcomes and mobility between simultaneous and staged bilateral ARCR.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Included were 51 patients who underwent simultaneous (anesthetized once) and 42 patients who underwent staged (anesthetized twice) bilateral ARCR between January 2014 and January 2018; for the staged group, the interval between procedures was at least 12 months. All operations were performed by the same surgeon, and all patients had minimum 24-month follow up in both shoulders. Patient-reported outcomes and range of motion (ROM) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively and compared between groups. Outcome measures included the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score as well as measures of psychological status, health-related quality of life, activities of daily living (ADL), and patient satisfaction with the state of one’s shoulders.
Results:
The mean follow-up times for the staged and simultaneous ARCR groups were 44.1 months (range, 36-60 months) and 37.5 months (range, 25-59 months), respectively. There were no significant differences in age, tear size, or fatty degeneration of rotator cuff muscles between the groups. The cumulative length of hospital stay in the staged group was significantly longer than in the simultaneous group (P < .001). At the final follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement in ROM, CMS, and ASES scores (P < .05). No significant differences between the groups were observed in terms of ROM, CMS, and ASES scores postoperatively. At 24 months postoperatively, psychological status and health-related quality of life in both groups improved significantly (P < .05), and there were no significant between-group differences. Patients were able to perform most essential ADL. Both groups had high patient satisfaction, but patient satisfaction for the second shoulder of the staged group was lower than that of the simultaneous group (P = .039).
Conclusion:
Simultaneous bilateral ARCR was shown to be effective, resulting in similar improvements in clinical outcomes to staged bilateral ARCR at 2-year follow-up. In addition to higher patient satisfaction, simultaneous bilateral ARCR also had a shorter treatment cycle.
Keywords: bilateral, rotator cuff tear, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, simultaneous or staged
With the aging of the global population and the increasing participation in sporting activities, a growing number of people sustain rotator cuff tears. 21 Patients with symptomatic, unilateral, full-thickness tears have a 35% chance of a contralateral full-thickness tear. 36 These contralateral rotator cuff tears may be asymptomatic at first; however, Yamaguchi et al 36 found that about 51% of these asymptomatic tears progress to symptomatic tears after a mean of 2.8 years.
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is a well-established technique for the treatment of rotator cuff tears. 35 Rhee et al 27 reported that 4% of the patients with rotator cuff repairs underwent bilateral ARCR. In patients with bilateral tears, treatment options include either a simultaneous (single-stage) bilateral ARCR or a staged bilateral ARCR. Typically, bilateral rotator cuff tears are treated with staged bilateral ARCR. Some studies 2,27 reported that good surgical outcomes could be obtained with staged bilateral ARCR. There are many theoretical advantages of using single-stage bilateral ARCR, including reduced hospitalization costs and shorter recovery times. 23,26 However, simultaneous surgery may lead to increased perioperative risk and poor shoulder functional recovery. 1,24 Pak et al 24 reported that the University of California, Los Angeles Shoulder Score of patients with unilateral repair was significantly higher than that of patients with single-stage bilateral repair.
The purpose of this study was to analyze inpatient and follow-up data from patients who underwent bilateral ARCR and compare postoperative shoulder function, psychological status, and quality of life between simultaneous and staged bilateral ARCR. We hypothesized that similar functional and psychological outcomes and better patient satisfaction would be found at final follow-up for simultaneous treatment.
Methods
In this ethics committee–approved study, we retrospectively reviewed data from 1580 patients with primary rotator cuff tears who underwent primary ARCR according to our institution’s patient database. All operations were performed by the same surgeon (J.J.G.). The criteria for performing ARCR included patients who had intractable shoulder pain and/or significant limitation of normal activities after 6 months of nonoperative treatment and who were younger than 70 years, with fatty degeneration grade <4, rotator cuff tears ≤5 cm, and no frozen shoulder. Only patients in whom both shoulders met the aforementioned criteria underwent bilateral ARCR.
At our institution, the decision to perform simultaneous or staged bilateral ARCR is based on patient preference after the patient is provided a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of both procedures. However, only patients with ASA 1 or 2 could choose simultaneous bilateral ARCR. 5,25
Study Patients
Of the 1580 patients, 132 (8.3%) underwent bilateral ARCR and were considered for the study. We excluded 35 patients for the following reasons: partial rotator cuff tear (n = 10), history of shoulder surgery for any reason (n = 2), revision surgery because of retear (n = 2), irreparable tears (n = 3), and <2-year follow-up in both shoulders (n = 4). Of the patients who underwent staged bilateral ARCR, we only included those who were diagnosed with bilateral tears before their first surgery. Ultimately, 93 patients were included: 42 patients who underwent staged bilateral ARCR and 51 patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral ARCR. The patient selection process is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of study enrollment.
Surgical Procedures
All procedures were carried out by the same experienced surgeon (J.J.G.) under general anesthesia. The patients were placed in the beach-chair position. Inflamed bursal tissue and adhesion in the subacromial space were debrided to facilitate visualization of tear size and retraction. If there were osteophytes on the acromion or the acromion was Bigliani type 3 (hook), subacromial decompression and acromioplasty were performed. The footprint of the greater tuberosity was prepared to enhance tendon-to-bone healing. Finally, reconstruction was performed using a typical double-row suture-bridge technique. Two 4.5- or 5.5-mm suture anchors (HEALIX; DePuy Mitek) were inserted at the edge of the articular cartilage. According to the tear size, 1 or more 5.5-mm suture anchors were placed at the lateral edge of the footprint on the greater tuberosity.
In the simultaneous group, the right shoulder was repaired first. Moreover, in the staged group, the more symptomatic tear was repaired first. For the staged group, the time between procedures was at least 12 months to allow the initially repaired shoulder sufficient time to heal.
Rehabilitation
Postoperative management was the same for both groups. The shoulders were immobilized using a sling with an abduction pillow for 6 weeks. All patients followed the same standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol, including passive forward flexion exercises and passive external rotation exercises on the first day after surgery. Patients in both groups were allowed to perform essential daily activities that require active motion, such as toilet needs and meal taking. Nonetheless, patients were instructed to perform these activities with care and within a limited range. At 6 weeks postoperatively, the sling was removed, and active exercises to improve muscle strength and range of motion (ROM) were gradually initiated. After 3 months, light sport activities were permitted. Full, unrestricted activities and manual work were permitted at 6 months, depending on the patient’s functional recovery.
Clinical Assessment
Basic characteristic information was collected preoperatively for all patients. The size of the tear in the anteroposterior dimension was used to categorize tears into 2 groups: (1) small (<1 cm) or medium (1-3 cm) and (2) large (3-5 cm). Early periprocedural complications within 30 days after surgery were collected, including infection, deep vein thrombosis, and medical complications.
Every operated shoulder was evaluated preoperatively; postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months; and annually thereafter. In the staged group, final follow-up was calculated from the date of the patients’ first surgery. Patients completed the Constant-Murley score (CMS), 10 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, 20 ROM, and modified Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) 11 preoperatively and at 24 months postoperatively. Further, they completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 16 , Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 6 and World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale–Abbreviated Version (WHOQOL-BREF) 12 preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was self-evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up and was categorized as very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied.
The CMS and ASES score were used to assess shoulder function. ROM was determined with a goniometer and included forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. Internal rotation was determined by the level that the dorsum of the hand could reach: thoracic vertebra 7, thoracic vertebra 12, lumbar vertebra 3, lumbosacral junction, buttocks, or lateral thigh.
We modified the OSS slightly so that the patients could intuitively assess their activities of daily living (ADL). The modified OSS included 12 items. The response options for the questions about ADL performance were no difficulty, little difficulty, moderate difficulty, extreme difficulty, and unable. The HADS and PSQI were used to assess psychological status. The HADS is composed of two 7-item subscales measuring anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D). The WHOQOL-BREF was used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were reported as means, standard deviations, and percentages. Internal rotation was expressed as median values. For shoulder function scores and ROM (except internal rotation), preoperative and postoperative means were compared using the Student t test. Internal rotation was compared using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The magnitude of improvement was evaluated for significant differences in the shoulder function scores and ROM (except internal rotation) between each group using a Student t test. The McNemar test was used to compare patient satisfaction between groups and changes from preoperative to final follow-up.
The described cutoff values were used to categorize anxiety and depression based on the HADS-A and HADS-D as normal, mild, moderate, and severe. The repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare psychological status scores and HRQoL between groups and changes from preoperative to final follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative prevalence of insomnia, depression, and anxiety was compared using the chi-square test. The threshold for statistical significance was set at P = .05. SPSS Version 19.0 (IBM) was used for statistical analysis.
Results
Complete preoperative and postoperative clinical data were available for 42 patients who underwent staged ARCR (staged group) with a mean final follow-up of 44.1 months (range, 36-60 months) and 51 patients who underwent simultaneous ARCR (simultaneous group) with a mean final follow-up of 37.5 months (range, 25-59 months). Characteristic data of the groups are shown in Table 1. The mean interval between the 2 procedures in the staged group was 13.7 months (range, 12-18 months). Total anesthesia time in the simultaneous group was significantly shorter than that of staged group (P = .027). The cumulative length of hospital stay in the staged group was significantly longer than the simultaneous group (P < .001). There were no significant differences in tear size, fatty degeneration grade, trauma history, combined lesions, and concomitant procedure between the 2 groups (Table 1). No early periprocedural complications were experienced in either group.
Table 1.
Characteristic Data a
| Variable | Staged Surgery (n = 42) | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | P | |
| Sex, male/female | 17/25 | 23/28 | .658 | ||
| Side, right/left | 28/14 | 14/28 | 51/0 | 0/51 | |
| Age, y | 57.3 ± 8.6 | 52.8 ± 7.2 | .720 | ||
| Interval between surgeries, mo, mean (range) | 13.7 (12-18) | 0 | |||
| Length of follow-up, mo, mean (range) | 44.1 (36-60) | 37.5 (25-59) | .041 | ||
| Length of hospital stay, d | 6.8 ± 0.6 | 3.5 ± 0.4 | <.001 | ||
| Duration of anesthesia, min | 135.6 ± 8.8 | 120.5 ± 9.3 | .027 | ||
| Trauma history | 5 | 3 | 7 | 3 | NS |
| Tear size, <3/3 to 5 cm | 25/17 | 26/16 | 31/20 | 29/22 | NS |
| Fatty degeneration grade | NS | ||||
| Supraspinatus | 1.6 ± 0.8 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 1.9 ± 0.8 | 1.8 ± 0.9 | |
| Infraspinatus | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | |
| Subscapularis | 0.7 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.6 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.6 | |
| Combined lesions | NS | ||||
| Subscapularis tear | 7 | 4 | 8 | 6 | |
| AC arthritis | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| SLAP lesion | 9 | 8 | 13 | 8 | |
| Biceps tear | 7 | 6 | 10 | 7 | |
| 2 of the above | 6 | 4 | 8 | 6 | |
| Concomitant procedures | NS | ||||
| Biceps tenotomy | 29 | 29 | 31 | 31 | |
| Acromioplasty | 7 | 5 | 10 | 8 | |
a Data are reported as absolute values or mean ± SD unless stated otherwise. Bolded P values indicate statistically significant between-group difference (P < .05). AC, acromioclavicular; NS, not significant; SLAP, superior labrum anterior-posterior.
There were significant improvements in shoulder function scores (CMS and ASES) and ROM from preoperative to the final follow-up in both groups (all P < .05) (Table 2). No significant differences were noted between the 2 groups. The second shoulder of the simultaneous group showed significantly greater improvement than the second shoulder of the staged group for ASES (P = .043), forward flexion (P = .039), and abduction (P = .025) (Table 3). The magnitude of improvement in shoulder function scores and ROM did not differ significantly between the first shoulder of the simultaneous group and the first shoulder of the staged group.
Table 2.
Shoulder Function Scores and Mobility a
| Variable | Staged Surgery (n = 42) | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | |||||
| Preop | Final | Preop | Final | Preop | Final | Preop | Final | |
| CMS pain | 4.0 ± 2.6 | 13.4 ± 5.2 | 5.2 ± 2.6 | 11.9 ± 4.0 | 4.9 ± 4.8 | 13.1 ± 5.1 | 5.5 ± 3.5 | 13.5 ± 4.7 |
| CMS activity | 6.8 ± 5.1 | 17.3 ± 5.5 | 7.3 ± 2.9 | 16.5 ± 5.9 | 6.4 ± 4.5 | 17.2 ± 5.7 | 6.6 ± 5.1 | 17.8 ± 4.9 |
| CMS mobility | 12.3 ± 6.8 | 33.4 ± 10.6 | 16.2 ± 7.5 | 32.5 ± 11.2 | 14.9 ± 8.4 | 34.9 ± 9.9 | 15.9 ± 9.1 | 34.1 ± 10.6 |
| CMS strength | 6.3 ± 4.2 | 19.7 ± 6.7 | 8.4 ± 3.0 | 20.1 ± 5.6 | 7.0 ± 3.8 | 21.2 ± 7.3 | 7.4 ± 3.0 | 20.6 ± 7.7 |
| CMS total | 29.3 ± 12.4 | 83.7 ± 17.5 | 37.4 ± 9.3 | 81.1 ± 16.7 | 33.2 ± 13.1 | 86.4 ± 17.7 | 35.4 ± 12.6 | 86.0 ± 16.8 |
| ASES | 30.0 ± 11.0 | 85.5 ± 15.2 | 40.8 ± 7.8 | 80.8 ± 13.3 | 30.7 ± 12.2 | 87.0 ± 14.2 | 33.5 ± 10.6 | 91.6 ± 11.3 |
| Forward flexion | 61.2 ± 23.4 | 140.9 ± 20.3 | 85.5 ± 22.2 | 137.6 ± 18.8 | 78.7 ± 28.1 | 147.1 ± 21.2 | 84.9 ± 26.0 | 153.7 ± 22.3 |
| Abduction | 48.6 ± 21.5 | 122.4 ± 15.9 | 59.3 ± 18.6 | 110.2 ± 16.5 | 56.7 ± 21.7 | 131.3 ± 20.8 | 60.9 ± 23.5 | 129.1 ± 23.2 |
| External rotation | 32.1 ± 11.5 | 74.8 ± 13.7 | 42.1 ± 14.3 | 62.8 ± 10.0 | 41.0 ± 15.2 | 73.1 ± 10.9 | 45.6 ± 17.5 | 77.5 ± 12.3 |
| Internal rotation, n (%) b | ||||||||
| Lateral thigh | 4 (9.5) | 0 (0) | 5 (11.9) | 0 (0) | 4 (7.8) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.9) | 0 (0) |
| Buttocks | 21 (50.0) | 1 (2.4) | 18 (42.9) | 2 (3.7) | 15 (29.4) | 0 (0) | 12 (23.5) | 0 (0) |
| LS junction | 15 (35.7) | 6 (14.3) | 15 (35.7) | 4 (9.5) | 22 (43.1) | 5 (9.8) | 24 (47.5) | 4 (7.8) |
| L3 | 2 (4.8) | 13 (31.0) | 3 (7.1) | 17 (36.5) | 7 (13.7) | 20 (39.2) | 10 (19.6) | 18 (35.3) |
| T12 | 0 (0) | 17 (40.5) | 1 (2.4) | 12 (33.6) | 2 (3.9) | 16 (31.4) | 1 (2.0) | 18 (35.3) |
| T7 | 0 (0) | 5 (11.9) | 0 (0) | 7 (16.7) | 1 (2.0) | 10 (19.6) | 1 (2.0) | 11 (21.5) |
| Median | Buttocks | T12 | Buttocks | T12 | LS junction | T12 | LS junction | T12 |
a Data are reported as mean ± SD unless stated otherwise. There were no statistically significant differences between shoulder groups for preoperative or final follow-up scores for any of the measures. Preoperative to final follow-up changes showed statistically significant improvement for all measures (all P < .05). ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; CMS, Constant-Murley score; Preop, preoperative; LS, lumbosacral.
b Determined by the level at the back that the dorsum of the hand could reach.
Table 3.
Improvement at Final Follow-up by Shoulder Group for Select Measures a
| Staged Surgery (n = 42) b | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) b | P | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | Staged First vs Simultaneous First | Staged Second vs Simultaneous Second | |
| CMS pain | 9.4 | 6.7 | 8.2 | 8.0 | .610 | .598 |
| CMS total | 54.4 | 43.7 | 53.2 | 50.6 | .918 | .375 |
| ASES | 55.5 | 40 | 56.3 | 58.1 | .872 | .043 |
| Forward flexion, deg | 79.7 | 52.1 | 68.4 | 68.8 | .213 | .039 |
| Abduction, deg | 73.8 | 50.9 | 74.6 | 68.2 | .898 | .025 |
| External rotation, deg | 42.7 | 20.7 | 32.1 | 31.9 | .116 | .091 |
a Bolded P values indicate statistically significant difference (P < .05). ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; CMS, Constant-Murley score.
b Data are reported as change from pre- to postoperative.
All patients in both groups were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their shoulders before surgery (Table 4). In the simultaneous group, 47 of 51 patients (92.2%) were satisfied or very satisfied postoperatively. In the staged group, 37 of 42 patients (88.1%) were satisfied or very satisfied after their first surgery and 30 of 42 patients (71.4%) were satisfied or very satisfied after their second surgery. The changes in patient satisfaction were statistically significant for both groups (all P < .001). At the final follow-up, patient satisfaction in the second shoulder of the staged group was substantially lower than that in the simultaneous group (P = .039).
Table 4.
Patient Satisfaction a
| Satisfaction | Staged Surgery (n = 42) | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Shoulder | Second Shoulder | |||||
| Preoperative | Final | Preoperative | Final | Preoperative | Final | |
| Very satisfied | 0 (0) | 28 (66.7) | 0 (0) | 20 (47.6) | 0 (0) | 34 (66.7) |
| Satisfied | 0 (0) | 9 (21.4) | 0 (0) | 10 (23.8) | 0 (0) | 13 (25.5) |
| Dissatisfied | 8 (19.0) | 4 (9.5) | 15 (35.7) | 11 (26.2) | 7 (13.7) | 4 (7.8) |
| Very dissatisfied | 34 (81.0) | 1 (2.4) | 27 (64.3) | 1 (2.4) | 44 (86.3) | 0 (0) |
| Pb | <.001 | <.001 | <.001 | |||
a Data are reported as n (%). Bolded P values indicate statistically significant between-group difference (P < .05).
b McNemar test for change from preoperative to final follow-up in satisfied (very satisfied or satisfied) vs dissatisfied (very dissatisfied or dissatisfied) scores.
After surgery, insomnia, anxiety, and depression decreased, whereas HRQoL increased significantly (Table 5). Both the simultaneous group and the second shoulder of the staged group showed critical improvement in the mean HADS-A, HADS-D, PSQI, and WHOQOL-BREF scores at 24 months postoperatively (all P < .05) (Figure 2), with no significant differences between the 2 groups on any of these measurements. However, the course of recovery in the 2 groups was different. In the simultaneous group, all measurements continued to improve with time. In the second side of the staged group, all measurements deteriorated at 3 months and recovered to improve at 6 months, reaching the final results at 24 months.
Table 5.
Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, and Insomnia a
| Psychological Parameter | Staged Surgery (n = 42) | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | Final | P | Preoperative | Final | P | |
| Depression | .024 | .005 | ||||
| Normal | 33 (78.6) | 39 (92.9) | 38 (74.5) | 47 (92.2) | ||
| Abnormal | 9 (21.4) | 3 (7.1) | 13 (25.5) | 4 (7.8) | ||
| Mild | 6 (14.3) | 3 (7.1) | 5 (9.8) | 2 (3.9) | ||
| Moderate | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 5 (9.8) | 1 (2.0) | ||
| Severe | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.9) | 1 (2.0) | ||
| Anxiety | .003 | <.001 | ||||
| Normal | 26 (61.9) | 39 (92.9) | 31 (60.8) | 47 (92.2) | ||
| Abnormal | 16 (38.1) | 3 (7.1) | 20 (39.2) | 4 (7.8) | ||
| Mild | 7 (16.7) | 3 (7.1) | 9 (21.4) | 2 (3.9) | ||
| Moderate | 6 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 6 (14.3) | 2 (3.9) | ||
| Severe | 3 (7.1) | 0 (0) | 5 (9.8) | 0 (0) | ||
| Insomnia | <.001 | <.001 | ||||
| Yes | 32 (76.2) | 16 (38.1) | 40 (78.4) | 18 (35.3) | ||
| No | 10 (23.8) | 26 (61.9) | 11 (21.6) | 33 (64.7) | ||
a Data are reported as No. of patients (%). Bolded P values indicate statistically significant difference.
Figure 2.
Comparison of pre- and postoperative (A) HADS-D, (B) HADS-A, (C) PSQI, and (D) WHOQOL-BREF scores between the staged and simultaneous surgery groups. *Statistically significant difference (P < .05). HADS-A, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–Anxiety subscale; HADS-D, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–Depression subscale; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; WHOQOL-BREF, World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale–Abbreviated Version; 0 months = preoperative.
The results of the modified OSS are shown in Table 6. Although some challenges were found with specific ADLs, the majority of patients in both groups were able to perform most activities. Especially for the activities of using public transport, carrying a plate of food, resting, and washing under arms, more than 90% of the patients in both groups had “no difficulty” or “little difficulty” in performing these activities. Playing sport was the most difficult activity for patients, but 66.7% of the patients in the staged group and 62.7% of the patients in the simultaneous group had “no difficulty” or “little difficulty” in playing sport.
Table 6.
Modified Oxford Shoulder Score ADL Values a
| Staged Surgery (n = 42) | Simultaneous Surgery (n = 51) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional Domain | No Difficulty | Little Difficulty | Moderate Difficulty | Extreme Difficulty | Unable | No Difficulty | Little Difficulty | Moderate Difficulty | Extreme Difficulty | Unable |
| Ability to play sport (worst pain) | 10 (23.8) | 18 (42.9) | 8 (19.0) | 5 (11.9) | 1 (2.4) | 15 (29.4) | 17 (33.3) | 13 (25.5) | 6 (11.8) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to dress independently | 22 (52.4) | 13 (31.0) | 5 (11.9) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 26 (51.0) | 16 (31.4) | 7 (13.7) | 2 (3.9) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to use public transport | 25 (59.5) | 11 (26.2) | 6 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 27 (52.9) | 19 (37.3) | 5 (9.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to eat independently | 27 (64.3) | 13 (31.0) | 1 (2.4) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 26 (51.0) | 18 (35.3) | 6 (11.8) | 1 (2.0) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to shop independently | 15 (35.7) | 20 (47.6) | 5 (11.9) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 16 (31.4) | 21 (41.2) | 11 (21.6) | 2 (3.9) | 1 (1.9) |
| Ability to carry a plate of food | 31 (73.8) | 10 (23.8) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 35 (68.6) | 13 (25.5) | 3 (5.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to comb own hair | 17 (40.5) | 15 (35.7) | 6 (14.3) | 3 (7.1) | 1 (2.4) | 24 (47.0) | 18 (35.3) | 7 (13.7) | 1 (2.0) | 1 (2.0) |
| Ability to rest (usual pain) | 32 (76.2) | 8 (19.0) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 43 (84.3) | 6 (11.7) | 1 (2.0) | 1 (2.0) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to hang clothes up | 23 (54.8) | 11 (26.2) | 5 (11.9) | 2 (4.8) | 1 (2.4) | 27 (52.9) | 12 (23.5) | 8 (15.7) | 2 (3.9) | 2 (3.9) |
| Ability to wash under arms | 35 (83.3) | 6 (14.3) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 42 (82.4) | 7 (13.7) | 1 (2.0) | 1 (2.0) | 0 (0) |
| Ability to perform usual work | 27 (64.3) | 10 (23.8) | 3 (7.1) | 2 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 32 (62.7) | 14 (27.5) | 3 (5.9) | 1 (2.0) | 1 (2.0) |
| Ability to sleep comfortably | 26 (61.9) | 8 (19.0) | 7 (16.7) | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0) | 33 (64.7) | 10 (19.6) | 5 (9.8) | 3 (5.9) | 0 (0) |
a Data are reported as number of patient responses (%). ADL, activities of daily living.
Discussion
These results suggest that simultaneous bilateral ARCR is an effective treatment with few complications, producing similarly good clinical outcomes in shoulder function, mobility, psychological status scores, and HRQoL when compared with staged bilateral ARCR.
Our study found some postoperative outcome measures (ASES, abduction, and forward elevation) were slightly better in the simultaneous group relative to the second shoulder of the staged group, although the outcomes for the first shoulder were comparable between groups. We speculate that the reason for this difference was the varying amount of early active motion. Although the postoperative rehabilitation plan was the same for both groups and that we suggested early mobilization for all patients, some patients in the staged group were inclined to use the recovered first shoulder to do daily activities and did not follow the rehabilitation plan. It has been reported that delayed motion may increase the risk of postoperative muscle atrophy, tendon degradation, and joint adhesions, which adversely affect the recovery of shoulder. 22,33 On the other hand, patients in the simultaneous group had to use both shoulders as early as possible, and it has been found that early active motion can decrease the incidence of postoperative shoulder stiffness and accelerate the healing process without increased risk of retears. 7,19,29
One important finding in our study was that bilateral ARCR could significantly improve psychological status and HRQoL regardless of the timing of operation. Sleep disturbance is a common symptom in patients with rotator cuff tear. 4 Sleep disturbance secondary to shoulder discomfort is likely to have a negative effect on patients’ quality of life and increase their anxiety and depression. 8 The rate of sleep disturbance in the general public is 25% 8 ; however, the prevalence of preoperative sleep disturbance in both groups in the current study was 76.2% and 78.4%, almost thrice that of the general public.
The reason why patients with rotator cuff tear experience increased nocturnal pain remains unclear. Ha et al 14 reported that melatonin levels that fluctuate according to circadian rhythms may lead to increased inflammatory reaction in the subacromial bursa at night. Therefore, the therapeutic effect of ARCR combined with the excision of the pathologic subacromial bursa may result in the improvement of nocturnal pain. Our results indicated that both surgical interventions were beneficial to patients with bilateral rotator cuff tear experiencing sleep disturbance. Depression, anxiety, and HRQoL in both groups improved significantly as well.
After the second shoulder was repaired, the outcome of psychological status and HRQoL in the staged group significantly deteriorated at 3 months postoperatively. One reason for this phenomenon may be that postoperative pain was greater in the second operated shoulder than in the first. Studies 18,32 have shown that patients who experienced repeated surgical injury can induce hyperalgesia through central sensitization.
In our study, patient satisfaction for the second shoulder of the staged group was lower than that in the simultaneous group. Several previous studies 28,31,34 have reported that patients had lower satisfaction scores after the second surgery compared with the first. Sundaram et al 31 found in their study of staged total knee arthroplasty that patients were more than twice as likely to state that their first operation was better than the second. Complex modeling and multivariate analysis have indicated that patient satisfaction is most influenced by preoperative expectations of surgery, hospital experience, and clinical outcomes. 15 Thus, lower patient satisfaction is likely because of higher expectations for the second operation. At our institution, if staged surgery is involved, the more symptomatic shoulder is repaired first. After their first shoulder achieved good postoperative results, the patients in the staged group may have had higher preoperative expectations for their second side. However, the second side had less room for improvement, and it was therefore more difficult to meet patients’ expectations. On the other hand, the preoperative expectation of the patients in the simultaneous group might have been pain relief and function recovery for both shoulders.
In our study, simultaneous bilateral ARCR reduced the length of hospital stay by almost 50% compared with staged bilateral ARCR. Although many centers around the world perform ARCR on an outpatient basis because it is a safe and cost-effective option, it is an inpatient surgery in our country. In addition, patients have to wait 1 or 2 days after being admitted before they undergo surgery, which contributes to their length of stay. The treatment cycle of patients in the simultaneous group was also significantly shorter than that of patients in the staged group. If the time between procedures in the staged group is decreased, patients in the staged group can shorten the overall duration of symptoms and reduce recovery time.
Kim et al 17 found in their study of staged bilateral ARCR that patients with an interval of ≤9 months between stages had a higher retear rate and significantly inferior clinical outcomes compared with patients with an interval of >9 months. Considering these issues, we did not perform surgery on the second side until the postoperative time of the first repaired side reached 12 months. Although the interval between the 2 operations was long, many patients still chose the staged surgery. One reason was to avoid possible difficulties with daily routines, such as personal hygiene, that may occur with a simultaneous bilateral procedure. Another reason was that they could not tolerate using bilateral slings for 6 weeks. Moreover, some patients chose staged surgery because they could independently undergo the postoperative rehabilitation.
To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the clinical outcomes between simultaneous and staged bilateral ARCR. Our study has several limitations. First, there was no routine postoperative imaging to evaluate the integrity of rotator cuff repairs. Second, there were differences in tear characteristics and sizes. We chose to include these patients because previous literature showed generally equivalent functional results after rotator cuff repair regardless of different tears. 3 Third, the use of individual responses on the CMS or ASES may not have validity, though the overall outcome measure has validity. The CMS and ASES were used in this study because they evaluated shoulder function with high accuracy, reproducibility, and test-retest reliability, and they had had shown a good correlation with shoulder function. 9,13,30
Conclusion
Simultaneous bilateral ARCR was shown to be effective, resulting in similar improvements in clinical outcomes during a 2-year follow-up, compared with staged bilateral ARCR. In addition to an overall higher patient satisfaction, simultaneous bilateral ARCR also had a shorter treatment cycle. Simultaneous bilateral ARCR is a promising option for patients with bilateral rotator cuff tears.
Footnotes
Final revision submitted April 24, 2021; accepted May 19, 2021.
The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (study No. 2018-312).
References
- 1. Agarwalla A, Gowd AK, Yao K, et al. A 15-minute incremental increase in operative duration is associated with an additional risk of complications within 30 days after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(7):2325967119860752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Aleem AW, Syed UA, Wascher J, et al. Functional outcomes after bilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1668–1673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Anakwenze OA, Baldwin K, Milby AH, Warrender W, Shulman B, Abboud JA. Arthroscopic repair of large rotator cuff tears using the double-row technique: an analysis of surgeon experience on efficiency and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(1):26–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Austin L, Pepe M, Tucker B, et al. Sleep disturbance associated with rotator cuff tear: correction with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(6):1455–1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Belmont PJ, Jr, Goodman GP, Waterman BR, Bader JO, Schoenfeld AJ. Thirty-day postoperative complications and mortality following total knee arthroplasty: incidence and risk factors among a national sample of 15,321 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(1):20–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28(2):193–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chan K, MacDermid JC, Hoppe DJ, et al. Delayed versus early motion after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1631–1639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Cho CH, Jung SW, Park JY, Song KS, Yu KI. Is shoulder pain for three months or longer correlated with depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(2):222–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Conboy VB, Morris RW, Kiss J, Carr AJ. An evaluation of the Constant-Murley shoulder assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):229–232. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(4):593–600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fang Y, Zhang Q. Outcomes after rotator cuff repair in the elderly as assessed by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2020;75:e1817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ha E, Lho YM, Seo HJ, Cho CH. Melatonin plays a role as a mediator of nocturnal pain in patients with shoulder disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(13):e108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Härter M, Reuter K, Gross-Hardt K, Bengel J. Screening for anxiety, depressive and somatoform disorders in rehabilitation---validity of HADS and GHQ-12 in patients with musculoskeletal disease. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(16):737–744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Kim HJ, Kee YM, Kim JY, Rhee YG. Safe time frame of staged bilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(9):1707–1715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kim MH, Nahm FS, Kim TK, Chang MJ, Do SH. Comparison of postoperative pain in the first and second knee in staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: clinical evidence of enhanced pain sensitivity after surgical injury. Pain. 2014;155(1):22–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Mazuquin BF, Wright AC, Russell S, Monga P, Selfe J, Richards J. Effectiveness of early compared with conservative rehabilitation for patients having rotator cuff repair surgery: an overview of systematic reviews. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(2):111–121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587–594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Minagawa H, Yamamoto N, Abe H, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic rotator cuff tears in the general population: from mass-screening in one village. J Orthop. 2013;10(1):8–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nabeshima Y, Grood ES, Sakurai A, Herman JH. Uniaxial tension inhibits tendon collagen degradation by collagenase in vitro. J Orthop Res. 1996;14(1):123–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Odum SM, Troyer JL, Kelly MP, Dedini RD, Bozic KJ. A cost-utility analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):1441–1449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Pak CH, Moon YL, Sim SW, Elsayed MI. Bilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using a single-stage procedure. Orthopedics. 2015;38(5):e423–e427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Restrepo C, Parvizi J, Dietrich T, Einhorn TA. Safety of simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1220–1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Reuben JD, Meyers SJ, Cox DD, Elliott M, Watson M, Shim SD. Cost comparison between bilateral simultaneous, staged, and unilateral total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(2):172–179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Rhee SM, Kim DH, Kim SH, Jeong HJ, Oh JH. The clinical outcomes and their associated factors in staged bilateral arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(10):2799–2807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Scott CE, Murray RC, MacDonald DJ, Biant LC. Staged bilateral total knee replacement: changes in expectations and outcomes between the first and second operations. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(6):752–758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Sheps DM, Silveira A, Beaupre L, et al. Early active motion versus sling immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(3):749–760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Skutek M, Fremerey RW, Zeichen J, Bosch U. Outcome analysis following open rotator cuff repair. Early effectiveness validated using four different shoulder assessment scales. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120(7-8):432–436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Sundaram RO, Finley R, Harvey RA, Parkinson RW. Clinical outcome following bilateral staged total knee arthroplasty using the anatomic modular knee. Orthop Proc. 2006;88(suppl 1):86. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Suzuki R, Dickenson A. Spinal and supraspinal contributions to central sensitization in peripheral neuropathy. Neurosignals. 2005;14(4):175–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Thornton GM, Shao X, Chung M, et al. Changes in mechanical loading lead to tendonspecific alterations in MMP and TIMP expression: influence of stress deprivation and intermittent cyclic hydrostatic compression on rat supraspinatus and Achilles tendons. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(10):698–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Wiater BP, Boone CR, Koueiter DM, Wiater JM. Early outcomes of staged bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case-control study. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(9):1232–1238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Williams G, Jr, Kraeutler MJ, Zmistowski B, Fenlin JM, Jr. No difference in postoperative pain after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(9):2759–2765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Yamaguchi K, Ditsios K, Middleton WD, Hildebolt CF, Galatz LM, Teefey SA. The demographic and morphological features of rotator cuff disease. A comparison of asymptomatic and symptomatic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1699–1704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]