No abstract

Cross-Sectional study with control group, Level II.

PurposeThe purpose of the study was clinical and advanced biomechanical evaluation of shoulder function with respect to rotator cuff (RC) integrity following repair.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 111 cases with solid single row rotator cuff repair and a minimal one-year follow-up. The RC repair was performed as an open procedure in 42 patients, arthroscopically assisted in 34 and fully arthroscopic in 48 cases. Evaluation protocol included ultrasound evaluation of the RC integrity, clinical evaluation using shoulder scores and advanced biomechanical evaluation (isometric and the isokinetic strength testing).ResultsUltrasound evaluation revealed complete retear in 16 %, partial retear in 10 % and intact repair in 74 % of the cases.Isometric testing of flexion and abduction had shown that shoulders with complete retear were weaker by 45 % compared to those with full tendon healing.Isokinetic testing revealed 29–43 % deficits in peak external rotation torque comparing complete retear vs. normal healing. Patients’ ability to generate shoulder power and withstand a load proved to be lower in circumstances of a complete lack of healing (40–43 % and 34–55 %, respectively). Partial retears did not have a negative impact on the biomechanical properties of shoulders. Surprisingly, there were no significant differences in the shoulder scores related to the quality of healing. In terms of patient satisfaction the results were good and the patients declared themselves better in all cases, no matter what quality of healing had been recorded ultimately.ConclusionsAccording to the results of this research rotator cuff integrity after open or arthroscopic repair does not seem to affect clinical scores. Recurrent tears may result in lower muscle performance in terms of active motion, strength and endurance. Advanced shoulder testing may be essential in assessing the patients’ ability to return to sports or heavy labour.

Proprioception is an essential part of shoulder stability and neuromuscular control. The purpose of the study was the development of a precise system of shoulder proprioception assessment in the active mode (Propriometr). For that purpose, devices such as the electronic goniometer and computer software had been designed. A pilot study was carried out on a control group of 27 healthy subjects, the average age being 23.8 (22–29) in order to test the system. The result of the assessment was the finding of the error of active reproduction of the joint position (EARJP). EARJP was assessed for flexion, abduction, external and internal rotation. For every motion, reference positions were used at three different angles. The results showed EARJP to range in 3–6.1°. The proprioception evaluation system (propriometr) allows a precise measurement of active joint position sense. The designed system can be used to assess proprioception in both shoulder injuries and treatment. In addition, all achieved results of normal shoulders may serve as reference to be compared with the results of forthcoming studies.

Purpose The main purpose of this study is to establish which of two methods is more reliable in glenoid assessment for instability in pre-operative planning. Accordingly, we have studied the intra-and inter-observer reliability of glenoid parameters with the use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images. Methods One hundred glenoids were measured with the use of 2D-CT and 3D-CT (in 3D orientation) by two independent observers (one experienced and one inexperienced). Measurements were repeated after one week for 30 randomly selected glenoids. Results The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for interobserver reliability was significantly greater for 3D-CT (0.811 to 0.915) than for 2D-CT (0.523 to 0.925). All intra-observer reliability values for 3D-CT were near perfect (0.835 to 0.997), while those for 2D-CT were less reliable (0.704 to 0.960). A dependent t-test showed that, for both observers, almost all glenoid parameters (except R and d) differed significantly (p < 0.05) between 2D and 3D measurement methods. Conclusions Therefore, it can be concluded that 3D glenoid reconstructions are more reliable for glenoid bone loss assessment than 2D-CT. The results suggest that quantifying a glenoid defect with the use of 2D image only-even if performed by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon-is prone to errors. Differences in measurements between and within observers can be explained by plane setting and identifying glenoid rim in 2D -C T. Accordingly, we recommend that glenoid measurements should be performed in 3D orientation using 3D reconstruction obtained from CT images for pre-operative assessments, which are crucial for surgical planning.