Poorer outcomes seen in patients who have re-tear after rotator cuff repair 

This cross-sectional study of 180 patients treated with rotator cuff repair shows significantly poorer outcomes in patients who have re-tears and highlights patient education, age and workers’ compensation status as factors for their poor results.
“The presence of a re-tear negatively affected the clinical outcomes following rotator cuff repair,” H. Mike Kim, MD, and colleagues concluded in their study.“This finding refutes the widely held concept that patients typically do well regardless of the repair integrity following rotator cuff repair.”
The investigators evaluated the patients using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). They also assessed the integrity of the patients’ rotator cuff repairs using ultrasound and categorized patients into the following age groups:

younger 55 years;

age 55 years to 65 years; and

older than 65 years.

Researchers found 26% of patients had a full-thickness re-tear, and patients in the re-tear group reported less satisfaction and poorer ASES and SST scores than patients who did not have a re-tear. In their analysis of the re-tear group, the investigators found patients in the oldest age group had better ASES, SST and satisfaction scores.

According to the study abstract, the findings also revealed lower education level as a factor for poorer SST scores in the re-tear group and a link between poorer ASES scores and younger age, lower education level and workers’ compensation for the cohort. For patients in the re-tear group, workers’ compensation and lower education level were also associated with less satisfaction.

“In patients with a re-tear, nonanatomic factors including younger age, lower education level and a workers’ compensation claim were associated with poorer outcomes,” Kim and colleagues wrote. – by Christian Ingram

Disclosures: One or more of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his or her institution), from a third party in support of an aspect of this work. In addition, one or more of the authors, or his or her institution, has had a financial relationship, in the 36 months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work.