Rotator cuff tear size, fatty infiltration, and scapular morphology are correlated with tendon healing and functional outcomes after arthroscopic repair; however, the association between anteroposterior acromial coverage and the clinical outcomes of anteroposterior massive rotator cuff tears (AP-MRCTs; involving all 3 tendons) remains unclear.
Purpose:
To identify the association between AP acromial coverage and functional and radiological outcomes after arthroscopic repair of AP-MRCTs.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
A total of 98 patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of AP-MRCTs between January 2015 and December 2020 were included in the study and classified according to whether anterior acromial coverage (AAC) was anterior (46 patients; positive AAC group) or posterior (52 patients; negative AAC group) to the scapular line on true lateral shoulder radiographs. Demographic characteristics, surgical details, and functional outcomes were prospectively collected. Acromial morphological features, global tear extension (GTE), the global fatty infiltration index (GFII), tendon integrity after repair, proximal humeral migration, and glenohumeral abduction were measured and calculated on radiographs or magnetic resonance imaging scans preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the independent risk factors of a rotator cuff retear.
Results:
The positive AAC group showed larger AAC, posterior acromial tilt, and anterior acromial slope as well as smaller posterior acromial coverage compared with the negative AAC group. Postoperatively, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (82.5 ± 8.3 vs 77.2 ± 11.5, respectively; P = .013), active abduction (157.8°± 27.1° vs 142.7°± 39.6°, respectively; P = .048), and glenohumeral abduction (45.6°± 10.4° vs 39.7°± 14.9°, respectively; P = .041) in the positive AAC group were significantly higher than those in the negative AAC group, while the retear rate (23.9% vs 44.2%, respectively; P = .035) and proximal humeral migration (1.7 ± 1.0 vs 2.3 ± 1.2 mm, respectively; P = .006) were significantly lower in the positive AAC group than in the negative AAC group. Smaller AAC (odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-1.00]; P = .040), larger GTE (OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.06]; P = .017), and a higher GFII (OR, 3.49 [95% CI, 1.09-11.19]; P = .036) were associated with an increased risk of a rotator cuff retear.
Conclusion:
Increased AAC was associated with a lower retear rate and better functional outcomes after arthroscopic repair of AP-MRCTs. A preliminary risk evaluation integrating GTE, the GFII, and AAC is recommended to consider the necessity of additional procedures for patients in need of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
BeelerSHaslerAGetzmannJ, et al. Acromial roof in patients with concentric osteoarthritis and massive rotator cuff tears: multiplanar analysis of 115 computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(10):1866-1876.
2.
BeelerSHaslerAGötschiTMeyerDCGerberC. Different acromial roof morphology in concentric and eccentric osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a multiplane reconstruction analysis of 105 shoulder computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(12):e357-e366.
3.
BiglianiLUTickerJBFlatowELSoslowskyLJMowVC. The relationship of acromial architecture to rotator cuff disease. Clin Sports Med. 1991;10(4):823-838.
4.
BloomDAKaplanDJMojicaE, et al. The minimal clinically important difference: a review of clinical significance. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(2):520-524.
5.
BuchbinderRKarjalainenTVGorelikA. Editorial commentary: arthroscopic treatment should no longer be offered to people with subacromial impingement. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(8):2525-2528.
6.
BurkhartSS. Fluoroscopic comparison of kinematic patterns in massive rotator cuff tears: a suspension bridge model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;284:144-152.
7.
BurnierMElhassanBTSanchez-SoteloJ. Surgical management of irreparable rotator cuff tears: what works, what does not, and what is coming. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(17):1603-1612.
8.
ChalmersPNBeckLMillerM, et al. Acromial morphology is not associated with rotator cuff tearing or repair healing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(11):2229-2239.
9.
ChenCWuCXuJ, et al. Are scapular morphologic characteristics or rotator cuff tear patterns associated with acetabularization of the coracoacromial arch?JSES Int. 2022;6(3):479-487.
10.
CollinPKempfJFMoléD, et al. Ten-year multicenter clinical and MRI evaluation of isolated supraspinatus repairs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(16):1355-1364.
11.
ConsiglierePHaddoOLevyOSforzaG. Subacromial impingement syndrome: management challenges. Orthop Res Rev. 2018;10:83-91.
12.
ConstantCRMurleyAH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:160-164.
13.
DavidsonJBurkhartSS. The geometric classification of rotator cuff tears: a system linking tear pattern to treatment and prognosis. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(3):417-424.
14.
DeOrioJKCofieldRH. Results of a second attempt at surgical repair of a failed initial rotator-cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):563-567.
15.
DrakeGNO’ConnorDPEdwardsTB. Indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1526-1533.
16.
EllmanHHankerGBayerM. Repair of the rotator cuff: end-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68(8):1136-1144.
17.
ErnstbrunnerLEl NasharRBouaichaSWieserKGerberC. Scapular morphologic characteristics and rotator cuff tear pattern are independently associated with chronic pseudoparalyis: a matched-pair analysis of patients with massive rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(9):2137-2143.
18.
ErnstbrunnerLEl NasharRFavreP, et al. Chronic pseudoparalysis needs to be distinguished from pseudoparesis: a structural and biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(2):291-297.
19.
FuchsBWeishauptDZanettiMHodlerJGerberC. Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8(6):599-605.
20.
GarciaGHLiuJNDegenRM, et al. Higher critical shoulder angle increases the risk of retear after rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):241-245.
21.
GerberCCanonicaSCatanzaroSErnstbrunnerL. Longitudinal observational study of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction: results after 15 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(5):831-838.
22.
GerberCFuchsBHodlerJ. The results of repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(4):505-515.
23.
GerberCSnedekerJGBaumgartnerDViehöferAF. Supraspinatus tendon load during abduction is dependent on the size of the critical shoulder angle: a biomechanical analysis. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(7):952-957.
24.
GiphartJEBrunkhorstJPHornNH, et al. Effect of plane of arm elevation on glenohumeral kinematics: a normative biplane fluoroscopy study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):238-245.
25.
GreenspoonJAPetriMWarthRJMillettPJ. Massive rotator cuff tears: pathomechanics, current treatment options, and clinical outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1493-1505.
26.
GuevaraJAEntezariVHoJC, et al. An update on surgical management of the repairable large-to-massive rotator cuff tear. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(19):1742-1754.
27.
HarrellFE. Multivariable modeling strategies. In: HarrellFE, ed. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer International Publishing; 2015:63-102.
28.
HenryPWassersteinDParkS, et al. Arthroscopic repair for chronic massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(12):2472-2480.
29.
JeongHYKimHJJeonYSRheeYG. Factors predictive of healing in large rotator cuff tears: is it possible to predict retear preoperatively?Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(7):1693-1700.
30.
JeongJYKimSJYoonTHEumKSChunYM. Arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears: complete repair with aggressive release compared with partial repair alone at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(14):1248-1254.
31.
KeenerJDWeiASKimHMSteger-MayKYamaguchiK. Proximal humeral migration in shoulders with symptomatic and asymptomatic rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1405-1413.
32.
KimDMJeonIHYangHS, et al. Poor prognostic factors in patients with rotator cuff retear. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(4):2325967121992154.
33.
KimHMCaldwellJMBuzaJA, et al. Factors affecting satisfaction and shoulder function in patients with a recurrent rotator cuff tear. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):106-112.
34.
KimJRChoYSRyuKJKimJH. Clinical and radiographic outcomes after arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears using a suture bridge technique: assessment of repair integrity on magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(4):786-793.
35.
KimMSRheeSMJeonHJRheeYG. Anteroposterior and lateral coverage of the acromion: prediction of the rotator cuff tear and tear size. Clin Orthop Surg. 2022;14(4):593-602.
36.
KimYKJungKHKimJWKimUSHwangDH. Factors affecting rotator cuff integrity after arthroscopic repair for medium-sized or larger cuff tears: a retrospective cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(6):1012-1020.
37.
LafosseLJostBReilandY, et al. Structural integrity and clinical outcomes after arthroscopic repair of isolated subscapularis tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1184-1193.
38.
LeBTWuXLLamPHMurrellGA. Factors predicting rotator cuff retears: an analysis of 1000 consecutive rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1134-1142.
39.
LeeMChenJYLiowMHL, et al. Critical shoulder angle and acromial index do not influence 24-month functional outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(13):2989-2994.
40.
LeeSHNamDJKimSJKimJW. Comparison of clinical and structural outcomes by subscapularis tendon status in massive rotator cuff tear. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2555-2562.
41.
LeeSJMinYKChungIKKangSWBanksSA. Comparison of dynamic in vivo shoulder kinematics before and after superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(1):2325967120970502.
42.
LiHChenYChenJHuaYChenS. Large critical shoulder angle has higher risk of tendon retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(8):1892-1900.
43.
LlinásPJBailieDSSanchezDA, et al. Partial superior capsular reconstruction to augment arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears using autogenous biceps tendon: effect on retear rate. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(11):3064-3072.
44.
LoIKBurkhartSS. Arthroscopic repair of massive, contracted, immobile rotator cuff tears using single and double interval slides: technique and preliminary results. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(1):22-33.
45.
LopezCDDingJBixbyEC, et al. Association between shoulder coracoacromial arch morphology and anterior instability of the shoulder. JSES Int. 2020;4(4):772-779.
46.
MeyerDCErnstbrunnerLBoyceG, et al. Posterior acromial morphology is significantly associated with posterior shoulder instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(14):1253-1260.
47.
MoorBKBouaichaSRothenfluhDASukthankarAGerberC. Is there an association between the individual anatomy of the scapula and the development of rotator cuff tears or osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint? A radiological study of the critical shoulder angle. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(7):935-941.
48.
MoorBKWieserKSlankamenacKGerberCBouaichaS. Relationship of individual scapular anatomy and degenerative rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(4):536-541.
49.
Nové-JosserandLEdwardsTBO’ConnorDPWalchG. The acromiohumeral and coracohumeral intervals are abnormal in rotator cuff tears with muscular fatty degeneration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;433:90-96.
50.
NyffelerRWWernerCMSukthankarASchmidMRGerberC. Association of a large lateral extension of the acromion with rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(4):800-805.
51.
OkHSKimBGChoiWC, et al. Clinical relevance of classifying massive rotator cuff tears: results based on functional and radiological findings after arthroscopic repair. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(1):157-166.
52.
ParkJYChungSWLeeSJ, et al. Combined subscapularis tears in massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: do they affect postoperative shoulder function and rotator cuff integrity?Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):183-190.
53.
RichardsRRAnKNBiglianiLU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3(6):347-352.
54.
SakomaYSanoHShinozaskiN, et al. Coverage of the humeral head by the coracoacromial arch: relationship with rotator cuff tears. Acta Med Okayama. 2013;67(6):377-383.
TunalıOErşenAKızılkurtT, et al. Are critical shoulder angle and acromion index correlated to the size of a rotator cuff tear. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022;108(2):103122.
60.
WangLKangYWeiY, et al. Rotator cuff tear reaching the superior half portion of the humeral head causes shoulder abduction malfunction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(5):1865-1872.
61.
WieserKRahmSSchubertM, et al. Fluoroscopic, magnetic resonance imaging, and electrophysiologic assessment of shoulders with massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):288-294.
62.
WileyAM. Superior humeral dislocation: a complication following decompression and debridement for rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;263:135-141.
63.
XuJHanKYeZ, et al. Biomechanical and histological results of dual-suspensory reconstruction using banded tendon graft to bridge massive rotator cuff tears in a chronic rabbit model. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(10):2767-2781.
64.
XuJLiYZhangX, et al. The biomechanical and histological processes of rerouting biceps to treat chronic irreparable rotator cuff tears in a rabbit model. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(2):347-361.
65.
YamaguchiKSherJSAndersenWK, et al. Glenohumeral motion in patients with rotator cuff tears: a comparison of asymptomatic and symptomatic shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(1):6-11.
66.
YoungBLCorpusKTScarolaG, et al. Outcomes of posterior labral repair with or without concomitant high-grade glenohumeral chondral pathology: a retrospective cohort with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(12):2720-2728.
