BackgroundArthroscopic rotator cuff repair generally has a good clinical outcome but shoulder stiffness after surgery due to subacromial adhesion is one of the most common and clinically important complications. Sodium hyaluronate (HA) has been reported to be an anti-adhesive agent in a range of surgical procedures. However, there are few reports of the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of the shoulder. This study examined whether a subacromial injection of HA/carboxymethylated cellulose (CMC) affected the postoperative shoulder stiffness and healing of rotator cuff repair, as well as the safety of an injection.MethodsBetween January 2008 and May 2008, 80 consecutive patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were enrolled. The patients were assigned randomly to the HA/CMC injection group (n = 40) or control group (n = 40). All patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, passive range of motion at 2, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery, and the functional scores at 6, 12 months postoperatively. Cuff healing was also evaluated using CT arthrography or ultrasonography at 6 or 12 months after surgery.ResultsThe HA/CMC injection group showed faster recovery of forward flexion at 2 weeks postoperatively than the control group but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). There were no significant difference in pain VAS, internal rotation, external rotation and functional scores between two groups at each follow-up period. The functional scores improved 6 months after surgery in both groups but there were no differences between the two groups. The incidence of unhealed rotator cuff was similar in the two groups. There were no complications related to an injection of anti-adhesive agents including wound problems or infections.ConclusionsA subacromial injection of an anti-adhesive agent after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair tended to produce faster recovery in forward flexion with no adverse effects on cuff healing. However, its anti-adhesive effects after rotator cuff repair should be considered carefully with further studies.

No abstract

BackgroundThere are few studies about risk factors for poor outcomes from multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion limited to three or four level lumbar posterolateral fusions. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of multi-level lumbar posterolateral fusion and to search for possible risk factors for poor surgical outcomes.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 37 consecutive patients who underwent multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion with posterior instrumentation. The outcomes were deemed either 'good' or 'bad' based on clinical and radiological results. Many demographic and radiological factors were analyzed to examine potential risk factors for poor outcomes. Student t-test, Fisher exact test, and the chi-square test were used based on the nature of the variables. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to exclude confounding factors.ResultsTwenty cases showed a good outcome (group A, 54.1%) and 17 cases showed a bad outcome (group B, 45.9%). The overall fusion rate was 70.3%. The revision procedures (group A: 1/20, 5.0%; group B: 4/17, 23.5%), proximal fusion to L2 (group A: 5/20, 25.0%; group B: 10/17, 58.8%), and severity of stenosis (group A: 12/19, 63.3%; group B: 3/11, 27.3%) were adopted as possible related factors to the outcome in univariate analysis. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that only the proximal fusion level (superior instrumented vertebra, SIV) was a significant risk factor. The cases in which SIV was L2 showed inferior outcomes than those in which SIV was L3. The odds ratio was 6.562 (95% confidence interval, 1.259 to 34.203).ConclusionsThe overall outcome of multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion was not as high as we had hoped it would be. Whether the SIV was L2 or L3 was the only significant risk factor identified for poor outcomes in multi-level lumbar or lumbosacral posterolateral fusion in the current study. Thus, the authors recommend that proximal fusion levels be carefully determined when multi-level lumbar fusions are considered.