Management of Failed Rotator Cuff Repair in Young Patients

Bassem T Elhassan1, Ryan M Cox, Dave R Shukla

  • 1Professor of Orthopedics, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Instructional Course Lectures
|August 15, 2019
PubMed

Insights

Managing failed rotator cuff repair is challenging, especially for younger patients. Optimizing surgical techniques and considering biologic or tendon transfer options can improve outcomes for revision rotator cuff surgery.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Sports Medicine
  • Regenerative Medicine

Background:

  • Failed rotator cuff repair presents significant challenges, particularly in young patients.
  • Numerous patient and surgical factors influence rotator cuff repair healing.
  • Revision rotator cuff repair outcomes are variable, necessitating systematic approaches.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review factors affecting rotator cuff repair healing and outcomes.
  • To evaluate the role of biologic augments in revision rotator cuff repair.
  • To discuss tendon transfer options for irreparable rotator cuff tears.

Main Methods:

  • Review of patient-related factors (age, tendon/bone quality, tear characteristics, lifestyle, medications).
  • Analysis of surgical variables (technique, timing, construct, fixation, rehabilitation).
  • Evaluation of biologic augmentation (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, grafts) and tendon transfer techniques.

Main Results:

  • Conflicting or inconclusive outcomes reported for biologic augments in revision rotator cuff repair.
  • Various tendon transfer options exist for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.
  • A systematic surgical approach is crucial for successful revision rotator cuff repair.

Conclusions:

  • Optimization of surgical techniques is paramount for managing failed rotator cuff repair.
  • Biologic and tendon transfer techniques may be indicated in specific cases.
  • Further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of biologic augments in revision settings.

Related Concept Videos

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?01:17

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?

The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null...
29.3K
Mismatch Repair01:36

Mismatch Repair

Overview
43.5K
Overview of DNA Repair02:25

Overview of DNA Repair

In order to be passed through generations, genomic DNA must be undamaged and error-free. However, every day, DNA in a cell undergoes several thousand to a million damaging events by natural causes and external factors. Ionizing radiation such as UV rays, free radicals produced during cellular respiration, and hydrolytic damage from metabolic reactions can alter the structure of DNA. Damages caused include single-base alteration, base dimerization, chain breaks, and cross-linkage.
Chemically...
33.5K
Base Excision Repair01:54

Base Excision Repair

One of the common DNA damages is the chemical alteration of single bases by alkylation, oxidation, or deamination. The altered bases cause mispairing and strand breakage during replication. This type of damage causes minimal change to the DNA double helix structure and can be repaired by the base excision repair (BER) pathways. BER corrects damaged DNA sequences by removing the damaged base and restoring the original base sequence using the complementary strand as a template.
The first step of...
26.1K
Nucleotide Excision Repair01:08

Nucleotide Excision Repair

Overview
40.6K
Long-patch Base Excision Repair01:02

Long-patch Base Excision Repair

Since the discovery of the two BER pathways, there has been a debate about how a cell chooses one pathway over the other and the factors determining this selection. Numerous in vitro experiments have pointed out multiple determinants for the sub-pathway selection. These are:
7.9K