Z Orthop Unfall 2019; 157(05): 534-539
DOI: 10.1055/a-0805-5972
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Postoperative Outcome of a New Shoulder Orthesis after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: a Prospective, Randomized Observational Study

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Patrick Ziegler
1  Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität, BG Unfallklinik Tübingen
,
Fabian Stuby
1  Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität, BG Unfallklinik Tübingen
,
Markus Alexander Küper
1  Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität, BG Unfallklinik Tübingen
,
Thomas Greschner
1  Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität, BG Unfallklinik Tübingen
,
Ulrich Stöckle
1  Klinik für Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie der Eberhard-Karls-Universität, BG Unfallklinik Tübingen
,
Markus Gühring
2  Klinik im Kronprinzenbau, Chirurgische Klinik, Reutlingen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 January 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background Rotator cuff tears are one of the most frequently treated disorders in arthroscopic surgery. Besides the different surgical options, there are differences in the postoperative aftercare. In this observational study the function, handling and comfort of two different ortheses (ADVAGOshoulder vs. standard abduction orthesis) were compared.

Patients and Methods 53 patients with a rotator cuff tear (n = 25 ADVAGOshoulder, n = 28 standard abduction orthesis) were examined and questioned before and after the surgical treatment based on the DASH Score, a modified Constant Score, the function, handling and everyday practicality of their orthesis.

Results The ADVAGOshoulder orthesis showed favorable results concerning the limitations of daily activity, quality of sleep and limitations in movement. The assessment by the patients regarding the contribution to therapeutic success was also more pronounced with ADVAGOshoulder. The standard abduction orthesis was assessed twice as good as the ADVAGOshoulder orthesis in relation to the overall success of treatment. Regarding the DASH questionnaires no significant differences were seen between the two groups.

Conclusion Both ortheses proved to be a suitable tool for immobilization of the shoulder after surgery, and contributed to the success of treatment, as assessed by the patients. The ADVAGOshoulder orthesis showed advantages related to limitations in movement and quality of sleep compared to the standard abduction orthesis.