Clinical and Structural Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair in Patients With Diabetes: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

The impact of diabetes on clinical and structural outcomes after rotator cuff repair remains controversial.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and retear rates after rotator cuff repair in patients with and without diabetes. Our hypotheses were that adequate control of diabetes would decrease the retear rate after rotator cuff repair and that patients with diabetes would have worse clinical outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients with and without diabetes after full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcome analysis included the Constant score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the University of California–Los Angeles shoulder rating scale; we compared preoperative, postoperative, and change in functional scores from baseline to final follow-up among the included studies. The pooled relative risk was calculated using a random-effects model for retear rates. Clinical outcomes were also pooled using a random-effects model.

Results:

Overall, 10 studies were included. Compared with patients without diabetes, patients with diabetes had a worse preoperative ASES score (P = .009) as well as worse postoperative Constant score (final follow-up range, 9-103 months; P = .0003). However, there was no significant difference in the absolute mean change in clinical outcomes between patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes was associated with a higher retear rate (19.3% in patients without diabetes vs 28.2% in patients with diabetes; P < .0001). The retear rate according to the severity of sustained hyperglycemia in the subgroup analysis was 14.6% in patients without diabetes, versus 22.7% in patients with well-controlled diabetes (<7.0% of preoperative serum HbA1c level; P = .12) and 40.0% in patients with uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c level ≥7.0%; P < .00001).

Conclusion:

This meta-analysis suggests that diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of retears after rotator cuff repair, and improved blood glucose control may reduce the risk of retears in patients with diabetes mellitus. Although effective glycemic control was associated with a decreased risk of retears in patients with diabetes, we could not prove causation because of potential bias and confounding in the included studies.

Keywords

rotator cuff diabetes mellitus retear outcomes meta-analysis

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is relatively common; worldwide, there were 451 million people aged 18 to 99 years with the condition in 2017. This figure is expected to increase to 693 million by 2045.¹⁷ The condition is frequently associated with various musculoskeletal disorders, which affect tendon and bone structures, healing, and vascularity.^5,15,44 Several reports and some epidemiological studies have emphasized the possible connection between DM and alterations of tendons in various parts of the body.^22,25 Poorly controlled diabetes negatively affected the mechanical properties of the native tendon and healing of an injured tendon in an experimental rat model.³⁰ Cho et al¹⁸ reported that sustained hyperglycemia increased the possibility of anatomic failure in repaired rotator cuffs. Furthermore, 2 large-scale, longitudinal population-based studies found that DM was an independent risk factor for rotator cuff disease development⁴⁶ and that those with DM were at a higher risk of rotator cuff tears.³⁵ In general, a retear is associated with poorer clinical outcomes compared with intact repair,^43,49,50 and no single preoperative factor is overwhelmingly predictive of it. Compared with other comorbidities including smoking, obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and age, diabetes most dramatically affects the speed of recovery, with earlier plateaus in recovery and worse overall outcomes.¹⁰ All of this suggests that patients with diabetes have poorer functional and structural outcomes after rotator cuff surgery compared with those without diabetes.

However, several previous studies have compared the clinical scores of rotator cuff repair between patients with and without diabetes and showed that there were no significant differences between the groups at final follow-up.^18,20,51 In addition, Clement et al²⁰ found that the mean improvement in pre- to postoperative outcome scores was significantly greater (P = .0002) in patients without diabetes compared with those with diabetes. This indicates that the impact of diabetes on outcome scores is uncertain. Furthermore, other recent studies have examined the preoperative clinical factors that predict retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and have suggested that DM is not a predictive factor for rotator cuff retears.^{26,31,37,40,51,55}

Until now, the effect of diabetes on outcomes after rotator cuff repair and the effect of sustained hyperglycemia on retear rates have not been well-characterized. A previous meta-analysis has shown that diabetes had a moderate negative effect on outcomes after rotator cuff repair.⁶¹ However, only 2 cohort studies were included in the analysis, and there was no grouping analysis based on blood glucose levels. This requires further research. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical and structural outcomes between patients with and without diabetes after rotator cuff repair and to determine the effect of glycemic control on the retear rate.

Methods

Search Strategy

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines⁷⁰ and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement.⁵² The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (No. CRD42020151508). We searched articles in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 1976 through September 2019 without language restrictions. The keywords used are shown in Table 1. Also, we conducted hand searches that extracted relevant articles from the reference lists of included studies or previous systematic reviews to identify additional studies that had not been captured with our primary search. The search results were imported into reference manager software (NoteExpress 3.2; Beijing Aegean Software Company) to avoid the duplication of records.

Table 1

Keywords Used in PubMed Database

	Keyword
1	Diabetes mellitus [MeSH]
2	Rotator cuff [MeSH]
3	Cuff, rotator [title/abstract]
4	Rotator cuffs [title/abstract]
5	Teres minor [title/abstract]
6	Subscapularis [title/abstract]
7	Infraspinatus [title/abstract]
8	Supraspinatus [title/abstract]
9	2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8
10	1 and 9 and humans [filter]

Study Selection

Inclusion criteria were studies of (1) patients who underwent surgery for full-thickness rotator cuff tears and that included (2) preoperative and postoperative clinical or structural data as well as (3) a comparison of patients with and without diabetes. Exclusion criteria were (1) studies of patients with partial repair, revision rotator cuff repair, osteoarthritis, or a history of shoulder trauma; (2) multiple studies of the same cohort; and (3) cadaveric, animal, and other laboratory studies. To avoid the duplication of information, we only included the most informative article or complete study.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The extracted data included year of publication, sample size, study design, postoperative rehabilitation protocol, number of retears, outcome measures (eg, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, University of California–Los Angeles [UCLA] shoulder rating scale), and follow-up time. The supplementary files were also examined for data extraction. Where necessary, we contacted the authors of included studies for additional information.

A quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).⁷³ This scale evaluates the quality of nonrandomized studies to be included in a systematic review and uses a “star scoring system” to judge 3 aspects of the study groups: (1) selection, (2) comparability, and (3) ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest for case-control or cohort studies, respectively. The lower the risk of bias, the higher the number of stars awarded to the article, with 9 being the maximum.

There were 2 investigators (L.Y., D.R.) who independently conducted the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment; a third investigator (W.S.) was consulted to resolve any discrepancies.

Statistical Analysis

The relative risk (RR) was used as a common measure of the association between diabetes and the retear rate in cohort studies. Results were combined by using a random-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was quantified by using the I ² value, which describes the variation in the effect size that is attributable to heterogeneity across studies.³⁴ According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, an I ² value of 0%-40% was considered to indicate unimportant heterogeneity, 30%-60% moderate heterogeneity, 50%-90% substantial heterogeneity, and 75%-100% considerable heterogeneity.³³ Subgroup analysis of the retear rate was conducted by stratifying patients into those with controlled diabetes (<7.0% preoperative serum HbA1c level), those with uncontrolled diabetes (≥7.0% preoperative serum HbA1c level), and those without diabetes. Sensitivity analysis was performed in which we omitted 1 study in turn to investigate the influence of a single study on the combined risk estimates and to test the stability of the main results. Publication bias was not determined because there were fewer than 10 included studies. A P value <.05 was judged as statistically significant. RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration) was used for all analyses.

Results

Literature Search

Details on study identification, screening, and selection are given in Figure 1. We initially retrieved 133 relevant reports from electronic databases and 3 studies from hand searches, of which 23 were excluded for being duplicate studies and 82 excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts, mainly because they were reviews, animal studies, or not relevant to our analysis. Thus, 31 articles were screened for the next step. Then, according to the inclusion criteria, 21 records were excluded. Ultimately, 10 studies were included in the final analysis.^**

Figure 1.

Search flow: trials identified and search process using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

Baseline Characteristics and Quality Assessment

The general characteristics of all the included studies are summarized in Table 2. Overall, 9 retrospective cohort studies and 1 case-control study³⁷ were included. Only 1 study¹⁶ selected open repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears and then assessed active and passive range of motion separately. In total, there were 1989 participants, 374 patients with diabetes and 1615 patients without diabetes. The follow-up duration ranged from 9 to 103 months. The mean NOS score of the included studies was 7.6 (range, 7-8); 6 articles were awarded 8 stars, and 4 were awarded 7 stars (Table 3). This indicated that the quality of the included literature was good and ensured greater reliability in the conclusion of our meta-analysis.

Table 2

Characteristics of Included Studies ^a

Author (Year)	Tear Size ^b	Intervention	Immobilization	Rehabilitation			Outcomes	Follow-up, mo	Imaging Method
Author (Year)	Tear Size ^b	Intervention	Immobilization	Passive ROM	Active ROM	Strengthening	Outcomes	Follow-up, mo	Imaging Method
Berglund¹⁰ (2018)	All sizes	Arthroscopic	Immediately (shoulder immobilizer)	On first day after surgery	6 wk	12 wk	ASES, active ROM, other	12	NS
Chen¹⁶ (2003)	Massive tears excluded	Open	NS	On first day after surgery	6-8 wk	10-12 wk	ASES, passive ROM, active ROM	24-70	MRI
Cho¹⁸ (2015)	Medium to large	Arthroscopic	NS	On first day after surgery	6 wk	24 wk	Retear rate, Constant, UCLA, active ROM, other	Minimum 12	MRI
Chung¹⁹ (2011)	All sizes	Arthroscopic	Immediately (abduction brace)	On first day after surgery but restricted for 2-4 wk postoperatively in patients with large to massive tears	4-6 wk	9-12 wk	Retear rate, other	Minimum 12	CTA, US
Clement²⁰ (2010)	Massive tears excluded	Arthroscopic	Immediately (sling)	On first day after surgery	8-10 wk	12 wk	Constant, active ROM, other	12	MRI, US
Dhar²⁶ (2013)	All sizes	Arthroscopic	Immediately (shoulder immobilizer)	First 6 wk	6 wk	20 wk	Retear rate, ASES, active ROM, other	Minimum 12	MRI
Jeong³⁷ (2018)	Large	Arthroscopic	NS	NS	NS	NS	Retear rate, other	Minimum 9	MRI
Kim⁴¹ (2018)	Medium to large	Arthroscopic	Immediately (abduction brace)	On first day after surgery	6 wk	12 wk	Retear rate, other	Minimum 24	MRI
Miyatake⁵¹ (2018)	Medium or large	Arthroscopic	Immediately (abduction brace)	NS	6 wk	12 wk	Retear rate, UCLA, active ROM, other	Minimum 12	MRI
Nakamura⁵⁵ (2016)	Large or massive	Arthroscopic	Immediately (sling with abduction pillow)	On first day after surgery	4-6 wk	8-12 wk	Retear rate, other	Minimum 24	MRI

^a ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; CTA, computed tomography arthrography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NS, not specified; ROM, range of motion; UCLA, University of California–Los Angeles; US, ultrasound.

^b Tear size: small/medium, 1-3 cm; large, 3-5 cm; and massive, >5 cm.

Table 3

Methodological Quality Assessment (Risk of Bias) of Included Studies by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale ^a

Author (Year)	Selection				Comparability	Outcome			Total Score	Risk of Bias ^b
Author (Year)	Exposed Cohort	Nonexposed Cohort	Ascertainment of Exposure	Outcome of Interest	Comparability	Assessment of Outcome	Length of Follow-up	Adequacy of Follow-up	Total Score	Risk of Bias ^b
Berglund¹⁰ (2018)	*	*	*	—	*	*	*	*	7	Medium
Chen¹⁶ (2003)	*	—	*	*	**	*	*	*	8	Low
Cho¹⁸ (2015)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	*	8	Low
Chung¹⁹ (2011)	*	*	*	—	*	*	*	*	7	Medium
Clement²⁰ (2010)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	*	8	Low
Dhar²⁶ (2013)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	*	8	Low
Kim⁴¹ (2018)	*	*	*	—	*	*	*	*	7	Medium
Miyatake⁵¹ (2018)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	*	8	Low
Nakamura⁵⁵ (2016)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	*	8	Low
	Selection					Exposure
Author (Year)	Adequate Definition	Representativeness	Selection of Controls	Definition of Controls	Comparability	Ascertainment of Exposure	Same Method of Ascertainment	Nonresponse Rate	Total Score	Risk of Bias ^b
Jeong³⁷ (2018)	*	*	*	—	**	*	*	—	7	Medium

^a Jeong³⁷ (2018) is a case-control study, and the rest are retrospective cohort studies.

^b Risk of bias: low, 0-1 inadequate items; medium, 2-3 inadequate items; high, >3 inadequate items; and very high, no description of methods.

—, 0 inadequate item; *, 1 adequate item; **, 2 adequate items.

Clinical Outcomes

Preoperative

There was no significant difference in the preoperative Constant score (I ² = 29%; P = .61) or UCLA score (I ² = 67%; P = .09) between patients with and without diabetes, however diabetes was significantly associated with a poorer preoperative ASES score (I ² = 41%; P = .009) (Figures 2 – 4). Subsequently, sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore any potential sources of heterogeneity and to examine the effect of various exclusion criteria on the combined risk estimates. Sensitivity analysis was also performed to exclude 1 study¹⁰ from the group of preoperative ASES scores, which revealed different results (I ² = 65%; P = .11), with substantial evidence of heterogeneity.

Figure 2.

Forest plot showing the preoperative Constant score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 3.

Forest plot showing the preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 4.

Forest plot showing the preoperative University of California–Los Angeles score. IV, inverse variance.

Postoperative

Diabetes was significantly associated with poorer postoperative clinical outcomes, except for the ASES score (I ² = 91%; P = .13) and UCLA score (I ² = 88%; P = .34), with considerable heterogeneity. The Constant score analysis showed that patients without diabetes had higher postoperative scores (I ² = 0%; P = .0003), with no heterogeneity. Further exclusion of any single study did not materially alter the results (Figures 5 -7).

Figure 5.

Forest plot showing the postoperative Constant score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 6.

Forest plot showing the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 7.

Forest plot showing the postoperative University of California–Los Angeles score. IV, inverse variance.

Preoperative Versus Postoperative

There was no significant difference in the absolute mean change in clinical outcomes from baseline to last follow-up between patients with and without diabetes. The results were consistent across all analyses. Moderate heterogeneity was observed in the Constant score (I ² = 47%; P = .39) and ASES score (I ² = 48%; P = .65). Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the UCLA score (I ² = 93%; P = .73). Further exclusion of any single study did not materially alter the results (Figures 8 -10).

Figure 8.

Forest plot showing the change in the Constant score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 9.

Forest plot showing the change in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. IV, inverse variance.

Figure 10.

Forest plot showing the change in the University of California–Los Angeles score. IV, inverse variance.

Retear Rate

Overall, 7 studies^{18,19,26,37,41,51,55} provided data concerning the rate of retears, and 2 of the studies^18,51 mentioned the relationship between glycemic control and retears. There was no heterogeneity across the included studies (I ² = 0%). There was a significant difference in the retear rate between the diabetic (28.15≈28.2%) and nondiabetic (19.3%) groups (P < .0001; RR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.34-2.17]; I ² = 0%) (Figure 11). To test the robustness of our findings, subgroup analyses were performed, and the results were relatively consistent. There was a significant difference in retear rates between the uncontrolled diabetic and nondiabetic groups (P < .00001; RR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.83-4.21]; I ² = 0%). In analyzing the retear rates according to the severity of sustained hyperglycemia, retears were found in 58 of 397 (14.6%) patients without diabetes, versus 10 of 44 (22.7%) patients with well-controlled diabetes (P = .12; RR, 1.59 [95% CI, 0.88-2.88]; I ² = 0%) and 20 of 50 (40.0%) patients with uncontrolled diabetes (P < .00001). However, there was no significant difference between the well-controlled and uncontrolled groups (P = .11; RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.31-1.13]; I ² = 0%) (Figure 12).

Figure 11.

Forest plot showing the retear rate. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 12.

Forest plot showing subgroup analyses for the retear rate. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Discussion

This meta-analysis showed that diabetes was significantly associated with an increased risk of retears in patients after rotator cuff repair, with no heterogeneity found across the included studies. Subgroup analysis of 2 studies^18,51 found that the retear rate was negatively correlated with blood glucose control. In most groups, the diabetic group had worse clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair. Further, sensitivity analysis did not materially alter the results. However, because the preoperative clinical outcomes in the diabetic group were also worse, there was no significant difference in improvement from baseline to last follow-up. Rotator cuff repair resulted in equal improvements in outcome scores in both the diabetic and nondiabetic groups.

Possible Mechanisms

DM is a complex disorder characterized by persistent hyperglycemia, and it is also a major factor contributing to the relatively poor prognosis in patients concerning a number of musculoskeletal disorders. Over 70% of people with diabetes report difficulty with routine physical activities, and diabetes alone was associated with 2 to 3 times increased odds of suffering from disabilities.³⁸ As nearly 10% of the United States population is diabetic, with an additional 33% being prediabetic, this is a particularly problematic health care challenge.⁵⁷

Several studies have suggested that diabetes can affect tendon repair outcomes. Using a diabetic tendinopathy model in animals, it has been recognized that alterations in inflammatory, angiogenic, and proliferative processes may be responsible.^9,15,24 These findings are in agreement with other studies in which researchers found that the same changes occur in humans^23,28,63 and that the tendons tended to degenerate, reduce mechanical strength, and predispose patients to ruptures. Lancaster et al⁴² showed that diabetic tendon preparations are approximately 13% shorter than controls in a canine model. Tendon contracture causes excessive strain on the suture-tendon interface and reduces tendon mobility, affecting tendon repair. The metabolic condition of poorly controlled diabetes negatively affects the mechanical properties of the tendon, thereby reducing the ultimate load to failure and increasing the risk of structural failure.^1,2,4 Furthermore, the tendon-suture interface is a weak link in rotator cuff repair in biomechanical and clinical studies,^21,48 making it reasonable to suspect that tendon quality may be a key factor in retears. Collagen is one of the major connective tissue components, and DM can cause decreased collagen content and defects in cross-linking^{68,69,74,76,79} as well as increased deposition of advanced glycation end-products at the tendon-bone interface, affecting tendon quality, tissue healing, and functional recovery.

DM is a risk factor for rotator cuff disease.^45,72 A meta-analysis⁶¹ showed that diabetes had a significant negative effect on retears, with an odds ratio of 2.13 with homogeneity, in 2 cohorts. Thus, the results of this study confirmed what has been previously documented: DM is associated with a significantly increased risk of retears after rotator cuff repair, and improved glycemic control may reduce the risk of retears. Surprisingly however, mechanical and clinical research by Thomas et al⁷¹ and Djerbi et al,²⁷ respectively, has shown that diabetes does not have any worsening effect on tendon tears. Le et al⁴³ showed that the diabetic status of the patient was not a significant contributor to retears (P = .83), but they did not assess the level or duration of glycemic control. These results appear to contrast with our findings. There is no conclusive evidence on the relationship between the presence of diabetes and the rate of rotator cuff retears. Further investigations are warranted to determine the primary factors related to the retear rate in patients with diabetes after rotator cuff repair.

A number of studies have indicated that diabetes is associated with joint stiffness.^{8,11,36,39,65} Compared with those without diabetes, patients with diabetes are 5 times more likely to develop adhesive capsulitis.⁷⁸ Bunker and Anthony¹² reported a higher incidence of shoulder stiffness in patients with diabetes (36%) versus the general population (3%). High-circulating blood glucose levels may lead to fibrosis,^58,66,77 and diabetes can cause neurological decline.^3,9 A recent review⁵³ showed structural and metabolic impairments in the muscle of patients with type 1 diabetes, at the tissue and cellular levels, across all age groups. Furthermore, type 2 diabetes was associated with decreased muscle strength and increased muscle fatigability in the upper extremities.⁵⁹ This will affect the muscle strength and functional scores of patients with diabetes to a certain extent. That explains why patients with diabetes had worse clinical outcomes before rotator cuff surgery in our findings.

However, some researchers hold different opinions on postoperative clinical outcomes. The prevalence of frozen shoulder has no correlation with glycemic control.⁷⁵ Namdari and Green⁵⁶ showed that there was no statistically significant correlation with range of motion after 1 year of observation in patients with diabetes after rotator cuff repair. Similarly, Razmjou et al⁶² found that the presence of diabetes had no negative impact on postoperative range of motion. In addition, analyses of preoperative clinical outcomes indicated inconsistent results, with several studies^16,26 showing no significant difference between patients with and without diabetes. The possible mechanism that may explain the result is that the earliest changes in diabetic neuropathy occur in sensory nerve fibers, and these changes cause hypoalgesia and numbness,^29,32 which are likely irreversible,³ affecting the accuracy of preoperative clinical outcomes. Another plausible mechanism⁵³ is that glycemia and the duration of diabetes are not the major determinants of these deficiencies.

The quality of previous studies examining the association of DM and rotator cuff repair varied. The current evidence in studies remains controversial. Therefore, the effect of diabetes on clinical and structural outcomes after rotator cuff surgery is still unclear.

Recently, fructosamine has been proposed as a replacement for HbA1c in preoperative blood glucose assessments. Because testing fructosamine is simpler and cheaper than testing HbA1c, it is more predictive of early postoperative complications.⁶⁷ Fructosamine measures the level of glycated serum proteins, reflecting the average blood sugar concentration over the past 2 to 3 weeks,⁷ and fructosamine levels quickly reflect blood glucose fluctuations in patients with known diabetes and those with unrecognized diabetes or hyperglycemia.^47,54,64 This can make up for the fact that HbA1c may not be able to detect early asymptomatic diabetes. However, there are currently no studies monitoring glucose levels with fructosamine in rotator cuff repair. More research is needed to see if fructosamine may be a better biomarker of glycemic control than HbA1c in rotator cuff repair.

Implications of This Research

Our meta-analysis found that repair of the diabetic rotator cuff improved function, although postoperative clinical results were worse than in nondiabetic patients. This is consistent with the results mentioned in the latest guidelines.⁶ The results of the subgroup analysis indicated that compared with the nondiabetic group there was an increased risk of retears in the diabetic group with poor glycemic control (P < .00001), while well-controlled diabetes was associated with a decreased risk of retears (P = .12). Currently, we cannot accurately predict which patient will have a retear, as no study has been found to predict this precisely so far. However, we were able to roughly predict who was more likely to worsen to a retear according to the risk factors after rotator cuff repair.

Diabetes is a common condition that is relatively easy to diagnose and manage. The potentially negative effect of diabetes on rotator cuff surgery needs to be given more attention. The importance of early treatment in the prediabetic and early diabetic stages to prevent nerve fiber decline has been validated because of the irreversibility of the injury. For clinicians, these findings may contribute to the sorting and management of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair, with diabetes as a risk factor for retears. As a primary prevention strategy, maintaining blood glucose levels within the reference range may improve patient-reported outcomes and enhance rotator cuff healing after surgery, and further prospective research needs to be conducted in this area.

Limitations

Regarding study limitations, we only compared patients with and without diabetes after rotator cuff repair. There was heterogeneity in surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols that could have affected outcomes. Most of the studies did not specify chronicity of the tear or grade of atrophy. The few studies that did provide these data used different grading systems. Our study had a large follow-up range (9-103 months), which may have affected the accuracy of the clinical outcomes. Despite the imprecise measurements, we believe that these associations deserve attention and further study. Although type 1 DM and type 2 DM have similar clinical presentations, they have different mechanisms.¹⁴ As these data were not available in the literature, we could not classify the type of diabetes. In addition, some studies^13,60 showed no significant difference in the impact of diabetes type on rotator cuff disease. The type of diabetes is an interesting factor, and this topic may be useful for future research. Although our review had many internal and external limitations, we do not believe that they substantially detract from the conclusions of this study.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found that DM was associated with a significantly increased risk of retears after rotator cuff repair, and improved glycemic control may reduce the risk of retears. Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores were significantly worse in patients with diabetes; however, the magnitude of improvement after surgery was similar to patients without diabetes. Therefore, effective glycemic control is recommended, especially during the perioperative period, in patients with diabetes undergoing rotator cuff repair. This may improve postoperative outcomes and decrease retear rates in patients with DM.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Abate

Schiavone

Salini

. Management of limited joint mobility in diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2013;6:197–207.

Abate

Schiavone

Salini

. Sonographic evaluation of the shoulder in asymptomatic elderly subjects with diabetes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11(1):278.

Abraham

Barnett

Katzberg

, et al. Nerve function varies with hemoglobin A1c in controls and type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2018;32(4):424–428.

Ahmed

. Does diabetes mellitus affect tendon healing? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;920:179–184.

Akturk

Karaahmetoglu

Kacar

Muftuoglu

. Thickness of the supraspinatus and biceps tendons in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(2):408.

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Management of rotator cuff injuries: clinical practice guideline. Available at: https://www.aaos.org/rotatorcuffinjuriescpg. Accessed December 23, 2019.

Armbruster

. Fructosamine: structure, analysis, and clinical usefulness. Clin Chem. 1987;33(12):2153–2163.

Balci

Tüzüner

. Shoulder adhesive capsulitis and shoulder range of motion in type II diabetes mellitus: association with diabetic complications. J Diabetes Complications. 1999;13(3):135–140.

Bedi

Fox

Harris

. Diabetes mellitus impairs tendon-bone healing after rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):978–988.

10.

Berglund

Kurowicki

Giveans

Horn

Levy

. Comorbidity effect on speed of recovery after arthroscopicrotator cuff repair. JSES Open Access. 2018;2(1):60–68.

11.

Bridgman

. Periarthritis of the shoulder and diabetes mellitus. Ann Rheum Dis. 1972;31(1):69–71.

12.

Bunker

Anthony

. The pathology of frozen shoulder: a Dupuytren-like disease. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(5):677–683.

13.

Cagliero

Apruzzese

Perlmutter

Nathan

. Musculoskeletal disorders of the hand and shoulder in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Sports Med. 2002;112(6):487–490.

14.

Callaghan

Hur

Feldman

. Diabetic neuropathy: one disease or two? Curr Opin Neurol. 2012;25(5):536–541.

15.

Chbinou

Frenette

. Insulin-dependent diabetes impairs the inflammatory response and delays angiogenesis following Achilles tendon injury. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004;286(5):R952–R957.

16.

Chen

Shapiro

Ahn

. Rotator cuff repair in patients with type I diabetes mellitus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(5):416–421.

17.

Cho

Shaw

Karuranga

, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138(1):271–281.

18.

Cho

Moon

Jeon

Rhee

. The influence of diabetes mellitus on clinical and structural outcomes after art. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(4):991–997.

19.

Chung

Gong

Kim

. Factors affecting rotator cuff healing after arthroscopic repair: osteoporosis as one of the independent risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(10):2099–2107.

20.

Clement

Hallett

MacDonald

. Does diabetes affect outcome after arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(8):1112–1117.

21.

Cummins

Murrell

. Mode of failure for rotator cuff repair with suture anchors identified at revision surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(2):128–133.

22.

de Grant

Sullivan

Sonenshine

. Electron microscopic investigation of the effects of diabetes mellitus on the Achilles tendon. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1997;36(4):272–278.

23.

DeGroot

. The AGE of the matrix: chemistry, consequence and cure. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2004;4(3):301–305.

24.

de Ippolito

Natali

Postacchini

. Morphological, immunochemical, and biochemical study of rabbit Achilles tendon at various ages. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(4):583–598.

25.

de Oliveira

Lemos

de Castro Silveira

Da Silva

de Moraes

. Alterations of tendons in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2011;28(8):886–895.

26.

Dhar

Anakwenze

Steele

Lozano

Abboud

. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: impact of diabetes mellitus on patient outcomes. Phys Sportsmed. 2013;41(1):22–29.

27.

Djerbi

Chammas

Mirous

Lazerges

Coulet

. Impact of cardiovascular risk factor on the prevalence and severity of symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(6):S269–S273.

28.

Dutta

Cohenford

Guha

. Non-enzymatic interactions of glyoxylate with lysine, arginine, and glucosamine: a study of advanced non-enzymatic glycation like compounds. Bioorg Chem. 2007;35(1):11–24.

29.

Dyck

Giannini

. Pathologic alterations in the diabetic neuropathies of humans: a review. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996;55(12):1181–1193.

30.

Fox

Bedi

Deng

. Diabetes mellitus alters the mechanical properties of the native tendon in an experimental rat model. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(6):880–885.

31.

Gasbarro

Newsome

, et al. Morphologic risk factors in predicting symptomatic structural failure of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: tear size, location, and atrophy matter. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(10):1947–1952.

32.

Green

Krishnan

Finucane

Rayman

. Altered C-fiber function as an indicator of early peripheral neuropathy in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(1):174–176.

33.

Higgins

Green

. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

34.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.

35.

Huang

Wang

Chou

. Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of rotator cuff tear repair surgery: a population-based cohort study. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(8):1473–1477.

36.

Janda

Hawkins

. Shoulder manipulation in patients with adhesive capsulitis and diabetes mellitus: a clinical note. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(1):36–38.

37.

Jeong

Kim

Jeon

Rhee

. 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.

38.

Kalyani

Corriere

Ferrucci

. Age-related and disease-related muscle loss: the effect of diabetes, obesity, and other diseases. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(10):819–829.

39.

Kerimoglu

Aydingoz

Atay

, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the rotator interval in patients on long-term hemodialysis: correlation with the range of shoulder motions. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(6):970–975.

40.

Kim

. Risk factors for retear after arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears using the suture bridge technique: classification system. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(11):2191–2200.

41.

Kim

Jung

Kim

Hwang

. 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.

42.

Lancaster

Haut

DeCamp

. Changes in the mechanical properties of patellar tendon preparations of spontaneously diabetic dogs under long-term insulin therapy. J Biomech. 1994;27(8):1105–1108.

43.

Lam

Murrell

. Factors predicting rotator cuff retears: an analysis of 1000 consecutive rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1134–1142.

44.

Leggin

Michener

Shaffer

, et al. The Penn shoulder score: reliability and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(3):138–151.

45.

Leong

, et al. Risk factors for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(9):627–637.

46.

Lin

TTL

Lin

Chang

. The effect of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and statins on the development of rotator cuff disease: a nationwide, 11-year, longitudinal, population-based follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(9):2126–2132.

47.

Malmstrom

Walldius

Grill

, et al. Fructosamine is a useful indicator of hyperglycaemia and glucose control in clinical and epidemiological studies: cross-sectional and longitudinal experience from the AMORIS cohort. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111463.

48.

Mazzocca

Millett

Guanche

Santangelo

Arciero

. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861–1868.

49.

Millar

Tantau

Silverstone

Murrell

. Open versus two forms of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):966–978.

50.

Miller

Downie

Kohen

, et al. When do rotator cuff repairs fail? Serial ultrasound examination after arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(10):2064–2070.

51.

Miyatake

Takeda

Fujii

, et al. Comparable clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(12):3810–3817.

52.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

53.

Monaco

Gingrich

Hawke

. Considering type 1 diabetes as a form of accelerated muscle aging. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2019;47(2):98–107.

54.

Moura

Amorim

Silva

, et al. Effect of a short-term exercise program on glycemic control measured by fructosamine test in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2014;6(1):16.

55.

Nakamura

Gotoh

Mitsui

, et al. Factors affecting clinical outcome in patients with structural failure after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(5):732–739.

56.

Namdari

Green

. Range of motion limitation after rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):290.

57.

Nichols

Loiselle

. Effects of type II diabetes mellitus on tendon homeostasis and healing. J Orthop Res. 2020;38(1):13–22.

58.

Oikawa

Hayasaka

Hashizume

, et al. Human arterial smooth muscle cell proliferation in diabetes. Diabetes. 1996;45(suppl 3):S114–S116.

59.

Orlando

Balducci

Bazzucchi

Pugliese

Sacchetti

. Muscle fatigability in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(1):10.1002/dmrr.2821.

60.

Pal

Anderson

Dick

. Limitation of joint mobility and shoulder capsulitis in insulin- and non-insulin-dependent mellitus. Br J Rheumatol. 1986;25(2):147–151.

61.

Raman

Walton

MacDermid

Athwal

. Predictors of outcomes after rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis. J Hand Ther. 2017;30(3):276–292.

62.

Razmjou

Henry

Costa

Dwyer

Holtby

. Effect of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery in patients with preoperative restricted range of motion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(99):1–6.

63.

Reiser

. Nonenzymatic glycation of collagen in aging and diabetes. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1998;218(1):23–37.

64.

Rondeau

Bourdon

. The glycation of albumin: structural and functional impacts. Biochimie. 2011;93(4):645–658.

65.

Rosenbloom

Silverstein

. Connective tissue and joint disease in diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 1996;25(2):473–483.

66.

Rowe

Starman

Fujimoto

Williams

. Abnormalities in proliferation and protein synthesis in skin fibroblast cultures from patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 1977;26(4):284–290.

67.

Shohat

Tarabichi

Tischler

Jabbour

Parvizi

. Serum fructosamine: a simple and inexpensive test for assessing preoperative glycemic control. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(22):1900–1907.

68.

Spanheimer

. Correlation between decreased collagen production in diabetic animals and in cells exposed to diabetic serum: response to insulin. Matrix. 1992;12(2):101–107.

69.

Spanheimer

Umpierrez

Stumpf

. Decreased collagen production in diabetic rats. Diabetes. 1988;37(4):371–376.

70.

Stroup

Berlin

Morton

, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.

71.

Thomas

Sarver

Yannascoli

, et al. Effect of isolated hyperglycemia on native mechanical and biologic shoulder joint properties in a rat model. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(11):1464–1470.

72.

Titchener

White

Hinchliffe

, et al. Comorbidities in rotator cuff disease: a case-control study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(9):1282–1288.

73.

Wells

Shea

O’Connell

. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2019.

74.

Wetzler

Kämpfer

Stallmeyer

Pfeilschifter

Frank

. Large and sustained induction of chemokines during impaired wound healing in the genetically diabetic mouse: prolonged persistence of neutrophils and macrophages during the late phase of repair. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;115(2):245–253.

75.

Yian

Contreras

Sodl

. Effects of glycemic control on prevalence of diabetic frozen shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(10):919–923.

76.

Yue

Swanson

McLennan

, et al. Abnormalities of granulation tissue and collagen formation in experimental diabetes, uraemia and malnutrition. Diabet Med. 1986;3(3):221–225.

77.

Zakaria

Davis

. Incidence and predictors of hospitalization for tendon rupture in type 2 diabetes: the Fremantle diabetes study. Diabet Med. 2013;31(4):425–430.

78.

Zreik

Malik

Charalambous

. Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder and diabetes: a meta-analysis of prevalence. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(1):26–34.

79.

Zykova

Jenssen

Berdal

, et al. Altered cytokine and nitric oxide secretion in vitro by macrophages from diabetic type II-like db/db mice. Diabetes. 2000;49(9):1451–1458.