PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2020; 55(04): 476-482
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402475
Artigos Originais
Ombro e Cotovelo

Acetabularization as a Protective Factor in Rotator Cuff Arthropathy[*]

Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: português | English
Leonardo Roure Esteves 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Carlos Vicente Andreoli 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Eduardo Antonio de Figueiredo 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Paulo Santoro Belangero 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Alberto de Castro Pochini 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Benno Ejnisman 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brasil
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective To check if shoulders with acetabularization have better functional results in cases of rotator cuff arthropathy.

Methods A clinical and radiological cross-sectional evaluation of 65 shoulders with rotator cuff arthropathy by measuring the range of motion (RoM) of the shoulder, the Constant-Murley score, and the radiological classifications of Hamada and Seebauer. The clinical findings were compared with the radiographic findings.

Results According to the classification of Seebauer, we observed better results regarding the RoM in type-A shoulders. There was a statistically significant difference regarding anterior elevation and medial rotation between types A and B (p < 0.05). Lateral rotation did not show a statistically significant difference between types A and B. The Constant-Murley score presented better results in type A, and there was a statistically significant difference between groups A and B (p < 0.05). According to the classification of Hamada, we observed that the RoM had better results in types 3, 2 and 1, and there was a statistically significant difference regarding anterior elevation and medial rotation (p < 0.05) compared with groups 4A, 4B and 5. There was no statistically significant difference between the Hamada groups regarding lateral rotation. According to Hamada, the Constant-Murley score showed better results in types 3, 1 and 2, and there was a statistically significant difference between groups 3 and 5.

Conclusion The RoM and shoulder function were better in patients with acetabularization (Seebauer 1A and Hamada 3), and worse in those with glenohumeral arthrosis (Seebauer 1B, 2B and Hamada 4A, 4B and 5).

Keywords

rotator cuff tear arthropathy - shoulder joint - rotator cuff injuries

* Work performed at the Center os Sports Traumatology (CETE), Departament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 02. November 2018

Angenommen: 26. März 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Juni 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; (214) 160-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gerber C. Integrated scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. In: Matsen 3rd FA, Fu FH, Hawkins RJ. , editors. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1993: 531-550
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Jensen KL, Williams Jr GR, Russell IJ, Rockwood Jr CA. Rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (09) 1312-1324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Neer II CS, Craig EV, Fukuda H. Cuff-tear arthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65 (09) 1232-1244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kirkley A. Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002; 3 (04) 220-233
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Visotsky JL, Basamania C, Seebauer L, Rockwood CA, Jensen KL. Cuff tear arthropathy: pathogenesis, classification, and algorithm for treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A (Suppl. 02) 35-40
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (07) 1476-1485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bedi A, Dines J, Warren RF, Dines DM. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (09) 1894-1908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M. A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (09) 2452-2460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kappe T, Cakir B, Reichel H, Elsharkawi M. Reliability of radiologic classification for cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20 (04) 543-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nam D, Maak TG, Raphael BS, Kepler CK, Cross MB, Warren RF. Rotator cuff tear arthropathy: evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (06) e34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Paxton ES, Teefey SA, Dahiya N, Keener JD, Yamaguchi K, Galatz LM. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of failed repairs of large or massive rotator cuff tears: minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (07) 627-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Amaral MVG, Faria JLR, Siqueira G. , et al. Artroplastia reversa do ombro no tratamento da artropatia do manguito rotador. Rev Bras Ortop 2014; 49 (03) 279-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 García-Rellán JE, Sánchez-Alepuz E, Mudarra-García J. Increased fatigue of the biceps after tenotomy of the long head of biceps tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (12) 3826-3831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar