Treatment Outcomes of Single-Versus Double-Row Repair for Larger Than Medium-Sized Rotator Cuff Tears The Effect of Preoperative Remnant Tendon Length
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gil Hospital, Gacheon University, Incheon, South Korea. The American Journal of Sports Medicine
(Impact Factor: 4.36).
08/2013; 41(10). DOI: 10.1177/0363546513499000
BACKGROUND:In rotator cuff repair, no practical guidelines exist for deciding which technique is the most beneficial to outcomes. PURPOSE:To determine which of 2 repair techniques, the single-row (SR) and double-row suture bridge (DR-SB) methods, leads to better therapeutic outcomes in terms of remnant tendon length in patients with larger than medium-sized cuff tears. STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS:Remnant tendon length, muscle atrophy, and fatty degeneration were measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 78 patients with larger than medium-sized rotator cuff tears who were available for follow-up MRI. There were 30 patients with remnant tendons <10 mm in length (group 1) and 48 with remnant tendons ≥10 mm in length (group 2). In group 1, the SR technique was performed on 17 patients and the DR-SB technique on 13 patients. In group 2, the SR technique was performed on 16 patients and the DR-SB technique on 32 patients. The mean follow-up period for all patients was 26.6 months (range, 24-42 months). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Constant, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. RESULTS:In group 1, there was 1 retear (6%) with the SR repair and 6 (46%) with the DR-SB repair. In group 2, there were 3 retears (19%) with the SR repair and 2 (6%) with the DR-SB repair. The retear rate was significantly higher in patients with the DR-SB repair in group 1 (P = .025), while there was no significant difference between the 2 techniques in group 2 (P = .316). The UCLA and Constant scores were significantly higher in patients with the SR repair in group 1 (P = .02 and P = .029, respectively), and the UCLA and ASES scores were significantly higher in patients with the DR-SB repair in group 2 (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSION:Remnant tendon length should be considered to improve repair integrity. The SR technique may provide superior rotator cuff integrity when remnant tendons are <10 mm in length.
Available from: Miguel Angel Moreno-Mateos
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Human securin, also known as human pituitary tumor-transforming gene 1 (pttg1), plays a key role in cell-cycle regulation. Two homologous genes, pttg2 and pttg3, have been identified although very little is known about their physiological function. In this study, we aimed at the characterization of these two pttg1 homologs. Real-time PCR analysis using specific probes demonstrated that Pttg2 is expressed at very low levels in various cell lines and tissues whereas Pttg3 was largely undetectable. We focused on the study of Pttg2 and found that, unlike PTTG1, PTTG2 lacks transactivation activity and does not bind to separase, making improbable a role in the control of sister chromatids separation. To further investigate the biological role of pttg2, we used short hairpin RNA inhibition of Pttg2 and found that cells with reduced Pttg2 levels assumed a rounded morphology compatible with a defect in cell adhesion and died by apoptosis in a p53- and p21-dependent manner. Using microarray technology, we generated a gene expression profile of Pttg2-depleted cells versus wild-type cells and found that knockdown of PTTG2 results in concomitant downregulation of E-cadherin and elevated vimentin levels, consistent with EMT induction. The observation of aberrant cellular behaviors in Pttg2-silenced cells reveals functions for pttg2 in cell adhesion and provides insights into a potential role in cell invasion.
Cell Death & Disease 03/2013; 4(3):e530. DOI:10.1038/cddis.2013.48 · 5.01 Impact Factor
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 10/2013; 41(10):2237-9. DOI:10.1177/0363546513506364 · 4.36 Impact Factor
The American Journal of Sports Medicine 04/2014; 42(4):NP22-3. DOI:10.1177/0363546514526548 · 4.36 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.