Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 46006

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : August | Volume : 17 | Issue : 8 | Page : RC08 - RC11 Full Version

Functional Outcome of Management of Isolated Supraspinatus Tendon Tear by Mini-open repair Technique- A Prospective Interventional Study


Published: August 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/62660.18312
Dinesh Kumar Tutika, Bandi Gowtham, Shanmukha Rao Gollapalli, Santhosh Babu Miryabbelli

1. Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Santhosh Babu Miryabbelli,
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital, Ragolu, Srikakulam-532484, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: drsravyapaleti89@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Rotator Cuff Injuries (RCIs) are common shoulder injuries, and the supraspinatus muscle, which is part of the rotator cuff, plays a crucial role in shoulder abduction. The mini-open repair technique offers several advantages, including being less invasive, leading to reduced postoperative morbidity, and shorter operative times.

Aim: The aim of this prospective interventional study was to assess the functional consequences of open microscopic repair and the functional implications of supraspinatus tendon repair following the procedure and during the postoperative healing period.

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics at Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital in Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. The study duration was one year, from July 2020 to July 2022. A total of 120 patients aged between 20 and 60 years were included, and all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. Patients were followed-up for one year and evaluated with Constant-Murley Score (CMS) system. Patient data were analysed based on gender, age, degree of tears, clinical test results, and postoperative scores. Levene’s test was used to determine variance homogeneity, and the Student’s t-test (two-tailed, dependent) was used to determine the statistical significance of study parameters on a continuous scale within each group.

Results: The study included 120 patients (84 males and 36 females), and the majority of them had traumatic tears. When data was analysed based on patient age, the majority were between 46 and 50 years (33 patients, 27%), followed by the age group of 41-45 years. At the end of one year, the outcomes were excellent in 68 patients, good in 24 patients, satisfactory in 16 patients, and poor in 12 patients.

Conclusion: Based on the results of the mini-open technique, the authors concluded that mini-open rotator cuff repair resulted in superior repair integrity and shoulder function.

Keywords

Functional outcome, Minimally invasive technique, Rotator cuff injuries, Short operative time

The rotator cuff contains the supraspinatus, teres minor, subscapularis, and infraspinatus muscles. The supraspinatus muscle partially integrates with the infraspinatus muscle’s tendon (1). Rotator Cuff Injuries (RCIs) are usually observed in patients aged above 60 years and have an impact not only on shoulder function but also on the Quality of Life (QoL) of patients (2). Epidemiological studies strongly support a link between age and the prevalence of rotator cuff tears (2),(3). The incidence of these tears increases from 13% in the youngest group (aged between 50-59 years) to 20% in the group aged between 60-69 years, and further increases to 31% in the group aged between 70-79 years, and finally reaches 51% in the oldest group (aged between 80-89 years) (1).

Supraspinatus tendinopathy is a debilitating disorder that becomes more common in middle age and is a frequent source of shoulder pain. Resistive overuse is a risk factor for this condition. The supraspinatus rotator cuff tendon is involved and impacted in the musculoskeletal system, and it deteriorates most typically as a result of repetitive pressures and overloading during sports or occupational activities (4). This occurs due to increased stress that exceeds the healing capacity of the tendon cells (tenocytes), leading to improper tendon repair (4). These degenerative processes begin with acute tendinitis, progress to tendinosis, and may eventually result in a full rupture (4). Increased mechanical loads on the supraspinatus tendon insertion lead to more collagen synthesis and turnover, leading to tendon tears and ruptures (5). An isolated supraspinatus tendon tear refers to a tear or rupture of the tendon of the supraspinatus muscle. The severity of the tear is determined by the number of tendons that are torn. According to Ladermann et al., a rotator cuff tear occurs when at least two tendons are completely ruptured (6).

The supraspinatus is a part of the shoulder’s rotator cuff and is often associated with other rotator cuff muscle tears. Since Codman and Akerson’s initial description of rotator cuff pathology, rotator cuff repair has become a common surgical procedure for the shoulder (1),(7). With advancements in arthroscopic repair techniques, such as margin convergence techniques and improvements in suture anchor technology (8),(9), the use of mini-open rotator cuff repair has become less common (10). Arthroscopic results align with available surgical techniques and provide detailed evaluation of the disease, increasing its diagnostic value. The healing rate after rotator cuff repair ranges from 60% in massive tears treated arthroscopically to 96% in tears treated using a mini-open technique (11),(12),(13),(14),(15). Mini-open repair with a lateral deltoid-split approach produces good postoperative outcomes as the deltoid muscle is not completely detached. There are advantages to using the mini-open technique, including shorter operating times and lower costs (16). Arthroscopic surgery allows for a shorter recovery time and less pain compared to open surgery. The mini-open repair with a lateral deltoid-split approach is commonly used (17),(18). The satisfactory clinical outcomes of the mini-open technique are compared favourably to open or arthroscopic repair techniques. However, arthroscopy is not a substitute for diagnostic skills (19).

There have been few studies evaluating the mini-open microscopic repair technique in India (20),(21), and none from South India. There are only a few studies exclusively studying the functional outcomes of the mini-open repair technique, and none have been conducted in the last three years (16),(20). Most of these studies are comparative studies that compare the mini-open technique to arthroscopic repair (19),(22). Therefore, the present study aims to assess the functional consequences of open microscopic repair and the functional implications of supraspinatus tendon repair after the procedure and during the postoperative healing period.

Material and Methods

A prospective interventional study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics, Great Eastern Medical School and Hospital in Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. The study duration was one year, from July 2020 to July 2022. The study was conducted after obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval (GEMS & H/IEC/2020/041).

Inclusion criteria: The study included all patients diagnosed with a Rotator Cuff (RC) tear, aged over 20 years and under 60 years, who were willing to participate.

Exclusion criteria: Patients over 60 years of age, those with proximal humerus fractures, those unfit for anesthesia or unwilling to participate, and patients with bilateral RC tears were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated using the formula:

n=(Zα/2)2 PQ/L2

Where Zα/2 is the critical value of the normal distribution (1.96), P is the expected prevalence (50%), Q is the complementary probability (50%), and L is the margin of error (10%). When these values were substituted into the formula (23), the minimum sample size was calculated to be 95. However, during the study period, 120 patients were included in the study.

Study Procedure

Patients were evaluated to exclude other Rotator Cuff (RC) injuries apart from the supraspinatus. A thorough history was taken, including history of smoking and alcoholism, which was documented. All patients underwent clinical evaluation to test the integrity of the RC using Jobe’s empty can test (supraspinatus), belly press test (subscapularis), horn blowers sign (infraspinatus and teres minor), and drop arm test (massive and complete RC tear), and the results were documented (24). Patients were informed about the study and participated voluntarily. A total of 120 patients were included in the study after clinical examination of the RC muscles using the drop arm test, horn blowers sign, empty can test, belly press test, Hawkins test, and confirmation of the RC tear by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) (Table/Fig 1)a,b.

All patients underwent diagnostic arthroscopy to confirm the diagnosis, examine the tear thickness, and determine its cause, which was documented in the operative notes. Subacromial decompression and acromioplasty were performed to relieve pain in cases where the humeral head was impinged by the acromion. The biceps tendon was evaluated for fraying, and biceps tenotomy was done in all patients aged 50 years and above. If there was no fraying, a mini-open supraspinatus repair was performed. Sutures were placed at the musculotendinous junction and tied to a medial suture anchor placed at the intersection of the articular surface with the greater tuberosity, with a 45° inclination (Table/Fig 2)a-d. The integrity and strength of the repair were evaluated prior to wound closure.

The commonly used suture anchor techniques are the Single Row (SR) and Double Row (DR). In the SR technique, two or more double-loaded suture anchors were placed in a single row at the lateral edge of the tendon’s insertion footprint on the greater tuberosity. In the DR repair technique, two rows of anchors were placed, one medial and adjacent to the articular cartilage in the anatomical neck, and the other lateral in the greater tubercle, to provide better anatomical footprint restoration (25).

For the first two weeks, the limb was kept in abduction in a neutral or 10-15° degrees internal rotation (if possible). Afterward, the limb was switched to sling immobilisation for another four weeks. Active elbow Range of Motion (ROM), passive pendulum exercises, and scapular stabilising exercises were started while wearing the sling.

After six weeks, active assisted ROM, pulley exercises, pendulum exercises, scapular stabilising exercises, and rotator cuff strengthening exercises were initiated. Patients were evaluated at three, six, and 12 weeks, and at six and 12 months using the CMS system, and the scar was inspected for any signs of infection (26). The CMS was developed to assess functional outcomes following shoulder injury treatment. This total score is divided into four subscales: pain (maximum 15 points), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (maximum 20 points), ROM (maximum 40 points), and strength (maximum 25 points). A higher score indicates better function (minimum 0, maximum 100).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed descriptively and inferentially. Mean values were presented as percentages (%). The level of significance, indicating the significance of an event, was set at 5%. Metric parameters were assessed using Student’s t-test (two-tailed, independent). The Levene’s test was used to assess the homogeneity of variance, and the Student’s t-test (two-tailed, dependent) was used to determine the statistical significance of study parameters on a continuous scale within each group.

Results

Based on the age of the patients, the majority of patients were between 46 to 50 years old, with 33 (27%) being males and 36 (30%) being females (Table/Fig 3). When asked about alcoholism and smoking habits, 96 (80%) patients reported no smoking habits, while 24 (20%) were known smokers, and 32 patients were alcoholics. When analysing the data for the type of tears, 68 (57%) had partial thickness tears and 52 (43%) had complete thickness tears. Among the patients, 112 had traumatic tears and only eight had degenerative tears. 67% of the patients presented with shoulder pain, while 33% were unable to lift their arm. Prior to consultation, 12 (10%) patients had received at least one intra-articular steroid injection.

Patients were clinically evaluated for the integrity of other RC muscles. The drop arm test was positive in 99 patients, the belly press test was positive in 44 patients, the Hawkins test was positive in 96 patients, Jobe’s empty can test was positive in 84 patients, and the horn blower’s sign was positive in 65 patients. Out of the 120 patients, 92 underwent surgery using the double-row technique with two anchors, and 28 patients underwent surgery using the single-row method. All patients were evaluated using the CMS score. Mild to moderate pain was reported up to three weeks post-surgery. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) showed improvement of 10 points from 12 weeks, and flexion and abduction improved over time. Strength also improved over time, with a score of 20 points from six months onwards (Table/Fig 4).

The average CMS score was 87±2.5. Before treatment, it was 33±4.8. There was a significant difference in CMS scores before and after mini-open repair (Table/Fig 5). A paired t-test was performed, and the major difference was noted after 12 weeks post-surgery. The p-value was <0.0001, indicating that mini-open repair significantly improved CMS scores among the study patients.

The maximum improvement in the CMS score was noticed after six months, with a 20-point improvement. Outcomes were rated as excellent in 68 patients, good in 24 patients, satisfactory in 16 patients, and poor in 12 patients at the end of one year (Table/Fig 6). Among the 120 patients, five experienced mild infection at the surgical site, which was managed with antibiotics. No other postoperative complications were encountered.

Discussion

The results of the present study were similar to a study by Cho CH et al., who evaluated 128 cases repaired by mini-open technique with an anterolateral approach and reported excellent results (27). Plachel F et al., (2020) studied 27 patients, with 16 undergoing single-row repair and 11 undergoing double-row repair, and followed them up for a mean±SD period of 12±1 years (range, 11-14 years) (28). Pearsall AW et al., studied 52 patients, with 27 undergoing arthroscopic repair and 25 undergoing mini-open repair, and found no significant difference in outcomes between the two techniques for RC tears (29). Barnes LA et al., (2017) studied 22 mini-open and 128 arthroscopic RC repairs conducted from July 2007 to June 2011 and found higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) scores in the mini-open group (30).

The mean CMS score at the end of the 12-month follow-up in our study was 87±2.5. ADL scores were not recorded in the first three and six weeks, respectively. However, it was observed that there was a 10-point improvement at six months and one year, respectively. When assessing movement flexion, the findings were not obtained at three and six weeks but rather at 12 weeks, with scores ranging from 1210 to 1500, and at six months, scores ranged from >1200, indicating an improvement of six points or higher at one year.

In the present study, the average CMS score was 87±2.5 at the end of one year. There were no recorded points for the first three and six weeks after performing the shoulder strength test. However, at the end of 12 weeks, there was a 15-point improvement, followed by 20 points after six months and one year, indicating that the mini-open surgery procedure yielded more than satisfactory results. The present study also collected the follow-up outcomes of previously published studies (Table/Fig 7) (31),(32),(33).

This strongly indicates that the mini-open repair surgical technique can effectively check and replace damaged tendons in the shoulder’s rotator cuff as part of the shoulder reconstruction process. Most of the patients (68 out of 120) achieved excellent strength. After one year, a full range of shoulder function was observed, which was statistically significant when compared to preoperative values. According to the findings of the present study, patients can regain the ability to carry out daily activities such as sweeping and washing their face within six weeks, while activities such as reaching for a shelf and washing their own back may take a year.

Adherence to strict postoperative physiotherapy has been critical for achieving full range of motion and pain-free Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The study on “Mini-open repair of isolated supraspinatus tendon tears” necessarily requires a longer followup period to arrive at specific guidelines and make comparable comparisons. Studies can be conducted on patients aged below 20 and above 80 years, and there should be multicenter studies including various tertiary care hospitals and specialised clinics to involve patient populations from different backgrounds. Studies can also be conducted to compare different scoring systems such as the Oxford Shoulder Score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.

Limitation(s)

In the present study, the duration of tendon tears was not assessed, and patients were only followed-up for one year. Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of the CMS score were not assessed.

Conclusion

The results of the present study showed that there was a considerable improvement in pain, strength, and QoL, regardless of the type of tear. The patients experience early recovery, better rehabilitation compliance, and excellent outcomes with the miniopen repair technique.

References

1.
Rutten MJ, Jager GJ, Kiemeney LA. Ultrasound detection of rotator cuff tears: Observer agreement related to increasing experience. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(6):440-46. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Viswanath A, Monga P. Trends in rotator cuff surgery: Research through the decades. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;(18)105-13. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Vaidyar JM, Kassim S, Shibli S, Safwan UH. Functional outcome of shoulder following mini open repair for rotator cuff injuries. International Journal of Current Research and Review. 2015;7(7):40-44.
4.
Spargoli G. Supraspinatus tendon pathomechanics: A current concepts review. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018;13(6):1083-94. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Smucny M, Shin EC, Zhang AL, Feeley BT, Gajiu T, Hall SL, et al; MOON Shoulder Group. Poor agreement on classification and treatment of subscapularis tendon tears. Journal of Arthroscopy. 2016;32(2):246-51. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Collin P. Massive rotator cuff tears: Definition and treatment. Int Orthop. 2015;39(12):2403-14. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Vora P, Shah V, Patel N, Chudasama C, Shah M, Prabhakar M. Results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. International Journal of Orthopaedics. 2018;4(1):652-55. [crossref]
8.
Burkhart SS, Athanasiou KA, Wirth MA. Margin convergence: A method of reducing strain in massive rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 1996;12(3):335-38. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Park MC, Elattrache NS, Ahmad CS, Tibone JE. “Transosseous-equivalent” rotator cuff repair technique. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1360.e1-5. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Colvin AC, Harrison AK, Flatow EL, Egorova N, Moskowitz A. National trends in rotator cuff repair. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2012;94(3):227-33. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(2):219-24. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Gerber C, Fuchs B, Hodler J. The results of repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(4):505-15. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Lafosse L, Brozska R, Toussaint B, Gobezie R. The outcome and structural integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with use of the double-row suture anchor technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1533-41. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Lee E, Bishop JY, Braman JP, Langford J, Gelber J, Flatow EL. Outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(1):01-05. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. A prospective outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):953-60. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Churchill RS, Ghorai JK. Total cost and operating room time comparison of rotator cuff repair techniques at low, intermediate, and high volume centers: Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):716-21. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Wagner ER, Elhassan BT. Surgical management of massive irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: Arthroscopic-assisted lower trapezius transfer. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(5):592-604. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Eid, Taher A, Hannout Y, El-Sayed A, El-Sayed M. Arthroscopically assisted repair of massive full-thickness rotator cuff tears: An analysis of 2-year postoperative follow-up. The Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal. 2018;53(1):77-82. [crossref]
19.
Morse K, Davis AD, Afra R, Kaye EK, Schepsis A, Voloshin I. Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(9):1824-28. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Chebbi PK, Manik R, Muthu M. A prospective comparative study of mini- open versus arthroscopic repair of supraspinatus tear. International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics. 2020;(6):777-84. [crossref]
21.
Bashir A, Seth S, Wani IH, Farooq M, Ul Gani N, Naqshi BF. Mini-open rotator cuff tear repair: An institutional experience with a midterm follow-up. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2018;20(5):383-87. Doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.8274. PMID: 30648663. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Karakoc Y, Atalay ĂŹB. Comparison of mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Retrospective analysis of a single center. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;(37):132. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Simarjeet K. Sample size determination. International Journal of Current Research. 2021;09(03):48365-67.
24.
Jain NB, Luz J, Higgins LD, Dong Y, Warner JJ, Matzkin E, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of special tests for rotator cuff tear: The ROW cohort study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(3):176-83. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Lo KYI, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):1035-42. [crossref][PubMed]
26.
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-64. [crossref]
27.
Cho CH, Song KS, Min BW, Jung GH, Lee YK, Sin HK. Anterolateral approach for mini-open rotator cuff repair. Int Orthop. 2012;36(1):95-100. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Plachel F, Siegert P, Rüttershoff K, Thiele K, Akgün D, Moroder P, et al. Long-term results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A follow-up study comparing single-row versus double-row fixation techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(7):1568-74. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Pearsall AW, Ibrahim KA, Madanagopal SG. The results of arthroscopic versus mini-open repair for rotator cuff tears at mid-term follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2007;24(2):1749-99. [crossref][PubMed]
30.
Barnes LA, Kim HM, Caldwell JM, Buza J, Ahmad CS, Bigliani LU, et al. Satisfaction, function and repair integrity after arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(2):245-49. [crossref][PubMed]
31.
Liu J, Fan L, Zhu Y, Yu H, Xu T, Li G. Comparison of clinical outcomes in all- arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of rotator cuff tears: A randomized clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(11):6322-25. [crossref][PubMed]
32.
Van der Zwaal P, Thomassen BJ, Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Lindenburg R, Swen JWA, van Arkel ERA. Clinical outcome in all-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair in small to medium-sized tears: A randomized controlled trial in 100 patients with 1-year follow-up. Journal of Arthroscopy. 2013;29(2)266-73. [crossref][PubMed]
33.
Kasten P, Keil C, Grieser T, Raiss P, Streich N, Loew M. Prospective randomised comparison of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2)1663-70.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/62660.18312

Date of Submission: Jan 05, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Feb 11, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jun 06, 2023
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 07, 2023
• Manual Googling: May 17, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jun 05, 2023 (11%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 9

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com