肩袖撕裂的病因探讨

Ｃｏｄｍａｎ提出冈上肌离大结节止点１ｃｍ处为乏血管区，此区是造成肩袖撕裂的主要原因。ＮｅｅｒⅡ则提出９５％的肩袖撕裂是由肩峰下撞击引起。作者对３５例肩袖撕裂的病人进行了临床与手术的观察，发现肩袖撕裂的部位主要分布于冈上肌，占９７．１％。３５例中撞击征病人１０例。Ｃｏｄｍａｎ的乏血管区不仅存在于冈上肌，亦存在于肩袖其它肌腱，故乏血管区不是引起肩袖撕裂的主要原因。撞击征亦不是，只占全部撕裂总数的２８．６％。作者认为引起肩袖撕裂的内在因素包括肩袖肌腱的乏血管区和冈上肌的特殊位置和功能，外在因素包括肩关节反复应用，肩峰下撞击和不同程度的肩部外伤。     

肩袖撕裂修复术后并发肩部僵硬因素的研究进展

肩袖撕裂是日常工作和体育活动中常见的一种肩部损伤。关节镜修复是目前治疗肩袖撕裂最广泛使用的方法,术后预后良好。但仍有一系列术后并发症影响治疗效果和患者满意度,如术后疼痛、感染、再次撕裂、肩部僵硬等。本文对肩袖撕裂关节镜修复术后肩关节僵硬的发生和影响因素进行了综述,以期为预防术后肩部僵硬,探究术后肩部僵硬的机制提供参考。     

肩袖撕裂治疗进展

肩袖撕裂的治疗方法有多种,目前临床上尚未形成统一标准.非手术治疗可缓解症状.关节清理术、肱二头肌长头腱切断术及部分修复术适用于年龄较大且对功能要求较低的患者,较年轻且有症状患者应接受完全修复术;完全修复术中单双排锚钉固定技术之间短期疗效无明显差异;线桥缝合技术具有生物力学优势,可减少再撕裂发生率;应用组织替代物可进行完全修复,但缺乏长期结论性数据.肌腱转位术适用于有高功能需求的巨大不可修复性肩袖撕裂患者.半肩关节置换术与反置式全肩关节置换术适用于巨大肩袖撕裂导致关节炎改变患者,但后者存在较多并发症发生风险.肩关节融合术很少采用.     

肩峰指数与非创伤性肩袖全层撕裂的相关性研究

目的 探讨通过肩峰指数预测非创伤性肩袖全层撕裂的临床价值。方法 回顾性分析自2019-01—2021-06诊治的111例肩关节疾病,58例确诊为非创伤性肩袖全层撕裂（观察组）,53例肩袖完整（对照组）,比较观察组与对照组的肩峰指数,比较观察组男性与女性患者的肩峰指数,比较观察组小型、中型、大型、巨大型肩袖撕裂患者的肩峰指数。结果观察组的肩峰指数值较对照组大,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组男性与女性患者肩峰指数比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。观察组小型、中型、大型、巨大型肩袖撕裂患者肩峰指数比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。Spearman相关性分析结果显示非创伤性肩袖全层撕裂类型与肩峰指数之间无相关性（r=-0.171,P=0.199）。结论 肩峰指数可在一定范围预测非创伤性肩袖全层撕裂的发生,但其无法预测肩袖撕裂的范围。     

关节镜下治疗大型肩袖撕裂

目的探讨肩关节镜下治疗大型肩袖撕裂的方法和疗效。方法对34例大型肩袖撕裂患者在关节镜下行单排或双排FastTakII锚钉止点重建术。应用美国肩肘外科医师协会评价系统（ASES）和加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）肩关节标准评分。结果34例均获随访,时间4．5～40（7．7±2．4）个月。术后患肩在主动上举、内收、后伸、外展、外旋和内旋6个方向的活动度较术前均有改善（P〈0．05）;患肩完成10项13常活动能力：术前为8．45分±O．97分,术后提高至24．60分±1．21分（P〈0．05）;ASES和UCLA评分：术前分别为24．64分±2．44分和8．06分±1．47分,术后分别提高至71．15分±1．28分和21．77分±1．16分（P〈0．05）;VAS评分：术前为7．18分±2．33分,术后为3．43分±1．75分（P〈0．05）。结论肩关节镜下肩袖重建手术微创治疗优势显著,3～5个作业通道和专业化手术器械的合理交替配合操作能满足大型肩袖撕裂止点重建需求,经镜下双排或单排锚钉重建后的大型损伤肩袖稳定性良好,肩关节功能改善明显。     

肩袖部分撕裂的诊断和治疗

目的探讨肩袖部分撕裂的诊断和手术方法。方法1999年4月~2004年1月,我所对14例肩袖部分撕裂进行手术治疗。术前均拍摄肩关节正位和冈上肌出口位X线片,11例B超检查,14例MR I或MRA检查。5例行肩峰下间隙减压及肩袖清理术;9例行肩峰下间隙减压及肩袖修复术。采用UCLA肩关节评分标准进行评价。结果滑囊侧部分撕裂7例,关节侧部分撕裂7例。14例随访1~6年,平均38个月,UCLA评分由术前(15.9±3.9)分升至术后(30.9±5.2)分(t=15.000,P=0.000)。良13例,差1例;13例满意。结论关节镜检查是诊断肩袖部分撕裂的可靠方法。肩袖修复术是治疗肩袖部分撕裂的有效方法。关节镜下手术创伤小、恢复快。     

关节镜辅助小切口肩袖修复术治疗肩袖撕裂

目的 探讨关节镜辅助小切口修复术治疗肩袖撕裂的临床效果. 方法 1999年3月～2004年3月应用关节镜辅助小切口修复术治疗肩袖撕裂22例.13例行关节镜检查,小切口肩峰下间隙减压及肩袖修复术;9例行关节镜下肩峰下间隙减压及小切口肩袖修复术.采用UCLA肩评分标准进行评价. 结果 22例随访12～72个月,平均47个月,UCLA评分由术前（14.8±3.8）分升至术后（32.0±4.7）分（t=15.086,P=0.000）.优7例,良13例,可1例,差1例;20例满意. 结论 关节镜辅助小切口修复术是治疗肩袖撕裂的有效方法,操作简单,创伤小.     

肩袖钙化性肌腱炎中发生肩袖撕裂的MRI研究

目的 探讨肩袖钙化性肌腱炎与肩袖撕裂的关系.方法 回顾性分析自2016-12-2019-11诊治的86例肩袖钙化性肌腱炎(观察组)与86例非钙化性肌腱炎(对照组),2组均完善MR1检查,比较2组肩袖撕裂数、肩袖全层撕裂数、肩袖撕裂位置.结果 172例均顺利完成检查,2组肩袖撕裂数、肩袖撕裂位置比较差异无统计学意义(P＞...     

保残修补对退行性肩袖全层撕裂术后肩袖愈合及肩关节功能的影响研究

目的 探讨保留足印区残端的肩袖修补术对退行性肩袖全层撕裂术后肩袖愈合以及肩关节功能的影响。方法 回顾性分析2019年4月—2022年5月152例接受关节镜下肩袖修补术的退行性肩袖全层撕裂患者临床资料。男76例,女76例;年龄24～78岁,平均55.4岁。术后6个月复查MRI,根据Sugaya分型评估肩袖愈合情况。对年龄（≥60岁/<60岁）、性别（男/女）、被动活动受限（是/否）、病程（≤3个月/>3个月）、保残修补（是/否）、缝线桥技术固定（是/否）、打结时肩关节外展角度（<45°/≥45°）、骨性肩峰成形（是/否）、治疗期间注射糖皮质激素（是/否）、术后开始被动锻炼时间（≤2周/>2周）、术后开始主动锻炼时间（≤3个月/>3个月）进行单因素分析,初步筛选肩袖愈合的影响因素;进一步采用logistic回归进行多因素分析,筛选危险因素。以是否使用保残修补作为分组条件,使用倾向性评分匹配平衡两组数据,对术后6、12个月肩关节功能美国肩肘外科协会评分（ASES）、Constant-Murley评分以及术后6个月肩袖愈合进行组间比较。结果 术后152例患者均获随...     

The rotator crescent and rotator cable: An anatomic description of the shoulder's “suspension bridge”

Twenty fresh frozen cadaver shoulders were dissected in order to study the rotator cable-crescent complex. The rotator crescent is a term that we have used to describe the thin, crescent-shaped sheet of rotator cuff comprising the distal portions of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus insertions. The crescent was found to be bounded on its proximal margin by a thick bundle of fibers that we have called the rotator cable. This cable-crescent configuration was found to consistently span the insertions of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons. The dimensions of the rotator cable and crescent were measured by a digital micrometer. The rotator cable was found to be a very substantial structure, averaging 2.59 times the thickness of the rotator crescent that it surrounded. This anatomic study supports the concepts of stress-shielding of the rotator crescent by the stout rotator cable and stress transfer by this loaded cable system.     

Anteroposterior and Lateral Coverage of the Acromion: Prediction of the Rotator Cuff Tear and Tear Size

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess whether the anteroposterior coverage of the acromion reflecting acromial morphology affects the rotator cuff tear (RCT) and tear size, in addition to the lateral coverage.MethodsMedical records of 356 patients with RCTs, concentric osteoarthritis, and calcific tendinitis identified using three-dimensional computed tomography between January 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into group A (those with RCTs) and group B (those with concentric osteoarthritis or calcific tendinitis). Subsequently, group A was subdivided into three categories according to the size of RCTs: small-to-medium, large, and massive. The lateral coverage was measured through the lateral acromial angle (LAA) and critical shoulder angle (CSA), whereas the anteroposterior coverage was measured via the acromial tilt (AT), acromiohumeral interval (AHI) in the sagittal view, and anteroposterior coverage index (APCI) as a new radiologic parameter.ResultsBetween groups A and B, CSA (34.5° ± 3.4° and 30.8° ± 3.4°, respectively), APCI (0.83 ± 0.10 and 0.75 ± 0.08, respectively), and AHI (6.3 ± 2.0 mm and 7.8 ± 1.8 mm, respectively) were significantly different (all p < 0.001), whereas LAA and AT did not show a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.089 and p = 0.665, respectively). The independent predictive radiologic parameters of the RCT were the CSA, APCI, and AHI (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.043, respectively); among these, the APCI showed the highest regression coefficient (odds ratio = 2.82). The parameters associated with the size of RCTs were CSA (p = 0.022) and AHI, of which AHI, in particular, had the most significant effect on both small-to-medium and large tears (all p < 0.001).ConclusionsLarge CSA, high APCI, and low AHI were predictors of RCTs, with the APCI showing the strongest correlation. In addition to the large CSA, low AHI also correlated with the size of RCTs and affected the entire size groups. We suggest that both the lateral coverage and anteroposterior coverage of the acromion should be considered essential factors for predicting the presence of RCTs and tear size.     

Accuracy of the rotator cuff reparability score

BACKGROUNDThe reparability of large or massive rotator cuff tears is difficult to determine pre-operatively. We previously identified age ≥ 65 years, acromiohumeral interval ≤ 6 mm, and anteroposterior tear size ≥ 22 mm as risk factors for rotator cuff repair failure. We therefore developed a rotator cuff reparability score where each of the above risk factors is assigned a score of one point. AIMTo determine the accuracy of a rotator cuff reparability score.METHODSThis was a retrospective cohort study of recruited patients with large or massive rotator cuff tears treated at our institution between January 2013 and December 2019. Exclusion criteria were revision surgery and patients with contraindications for surgery. All patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and were categorized into either complete or partial rotator cuff repair. Rotator cuff reparability scores were calculated for each patient. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio were assessed. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to determine the optimal cut-off rotator cuff reparability score. RESULTSEighty patients (mean age, 61 years; range, 25–84 years; 41 females and 39 males) were recruited. Intra- and inter-observer reliabilities were good to excellent. The number of patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 risk factors for rotator cuff repair failure were 24, 33, 17, and 6, respectively. Complete repair was performed in all patients without risk factors. Two of the 33 patients with one risk factor and seven of the 17 patients with two risk factors underwent partial repair. One of the six patients with three risk factors underwent complete repair. The area under the curve was 0.894. The optimal cut-off score was two points with a sensitivity of 85.71% and a specificity of 83.33%. CONCLUSIONA rotator cuff reparability score of two was determined to be the optimal cut-off score for predicting the reparability of large or massive rotator cuff tears.     

肩袖撕裂与肩峰骨棘之间关系的临床研究

目的回顾性分析肩袖撕裂患者术前肩关节X线片显示的肩峰骨棘的形态学变化,探讨与其合并肩袖撕裂的关系。方法依据1970年5月至1998年3月间,日本信原病院1068例肩袖撕裂患者的1121个肩关节正位X线片和其临床患者资料。分别测量X线片上超过1mm的肩峰骨棘大小(A级为≥1～5mm,B级为≥5～10mm,C级为≥10mm)及肩峰下间隙(又称作肩峰与肱骨头间距离,AHI)。临床患者资料分析包括患者的年龄、性别、肩关节疾病史及既往病史,治疗、手术经过等。结果根据肩峰骨棘的形态学变化,本文将肩峰形态分为六型,Ⅰ型(正常肩峰47.6%),Ⅱ型(肩峰下平面的骨棘16.5%),Ⅲ型(外侧肩峰的骨棘3.3%),Ⅳ型(喙肩韧带方向的骨棘11.9%),Ⅴ型(肩锁关节的退变20.4%),Ⅵ型(肩峰的双边征象17.8%);其中534肩(47.6%)无肩峰骨棘(12～87岁,平均54.1岁);587肩(52.4%)有肩峰骨棘(17～83岁,平均59.4岁);肩峰骨棘的患者中467个肩(41.7%)的骨棘为A级,112个肩(10%)为B级,8个肩(0.7%)为C级。801个肩(71.5%)的肩袖撕裂是由创伤所致;不明原因的肩袖撕裂有201个肩(17.9%);过度使用、积累性劳损的是119个肩(10.6%)。AHI的平均值为(8.7±2.6)mm,男性患者为(8.8±2.6)mm,女性患者为(8.4±2.7)mm,在有肩峰骨棘患者群中AHI为(8.4±2.7)mm,无肩峰骨棘患者群中AHI为(9.1±2.5)mm(t=2.93,P0.05),而男性与女性患者间的AHI差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。肩峰骨棘患者群中51～60岁年龄组与61岁以上各年龄组间都有统计学差异(2=64.64,P0.05)。结论肩关节X线片上肩峰骨棘的形态学分类,有助于医师认识和确诊患者患有肩峰骨棘。本研究认为肩峰骨棘与肩袖撕裂有明确相关性。随着患者年龄的增大,肩袖肌腱和肩峰骨质退行性变的发生,轻微的创伤都有可能导致肩袖撕裂。50岁以上的肩关节患者合并有肩峰骨棘,都应考虑其有肩袖撕裂的可能。