Original Research

In Throwers With Posterior Instability, Rotator Cuff Tears Are Common but Do Not Affect Surgical Outcomes

Publish date: January 30, 2018

References

1. Bradley JP, Baker CL 3rd, Kline AJ, Armfield DR, Chhabra A. Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction for posterior instability of the shoulder: a prospective study of 100 shoulders. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(7):1061-1071.

2. Bradley JP, McClincy MP, Arner JW, Tejwani SG. Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction for posterior instability of the shoulder: a prospective study of 200 shoulders. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2005-2014.

3. McClincy MP, Arner JW, Bradley JP. Posterior shoulder instability in throwing athletes: a case-matched comparison of throwers and non-throwers. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(6):1041-1051.

4. Radkowski CA, Chhabra A, Baker CL 3rd, Tejwani SG, Bradley JP. Arthroscopic capsulolabral repair for posterior shoulder instability in throwing athletes compared with nonthrowing athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(4):693-699.

5. Neri BR, ElAttrache NS, Owsley KC, Mohr K, Yocum LA. Outcome of type II superior labral anterior posterior repairs in elite overhead athletes: effect of concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):114-120.

6. Kim SH, Park JS, Jeong WK, Shin SK. The Kim test: a novel test for posteroinferior labral lesion of the shoulder—a comparison to the jerk test. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(8):1188-1192.

7. Antoniou J, Duckworth DT, Harryman DT 2nd. Capsulolabral augmentation for the management of posteroinferior instability of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(9):1220-1230.

8. Altchek DW, Hobbs WR. Evaluation and management of shoulder instability in the elite overhead thrower. Orthop Clin North Am. 2001;32(3):423-430, viii.

9. Fuchs B, Jost B, Gerber C. Posterior-inferior capsular shift for the treatment of recurrent, voluntary posterior subluxation of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(1):16-25.

10. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3(6):347-352.

11. Arner JW, McClincy MP, Bradley JP. Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability is successful in American football players. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(8):1466-1471.

12. Mazoue CG, Andrews JR. Repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in professional baseball players. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(2):182-189.

13. Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K. Sports activity after arthroscopic superior labral repair using suture anchors in overhead-throwing athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):507-514.

14. Economopoulos KJ, Brockmeier SF. Rotator cuff tears in overhead athletes. Clin Sports Med. 2012;31(4):675-692.

OUTCOMES

Table 2 lists the preoperative and postoperative scores for shoulder performance in throwing athletes with posterior shoulder instability, with and without RCTs.

Table 2. Preoperative and Postoperative Scores for Shoulder Performance in Throwing Athletes With Posterior Shoulder Instability With and Without Rotator Cuff Tears^a

	With Rotator Cuff Tears (n=24 shoulders)					Without Rotator Cuff Tears (n=32 shoulders)
	Preoperative		Latest Follow-Up			Preoperative		Latest Follow-Up
Outcome Measure	Mean Score	Range	Mean Score	Range	P	Mean Score	Range	Mean Score	Range	P
ASES 0-100 0 = worst	41.8	20-70	85.4	67-100	<.05	49.7	20-85	83.1	25-100	<.05
Stability 0-10 0 = most stable	6.7	2-10	2.4	0-6	<.05	7.8	0-10	2.4	0-8	<.05
Pain 0-10 10 = worst	7.6	5-10	1.9	0-5	<.05	6.3	0-10	2.2	0-7	<.05
Function 0-30 0 = worst	18.5	6-27	27	16-30	<.05	19.0	8-26	26.4	6-30	<.05

^aThere was no difference in ASES, stability, pain, or functional scores between athletes with posterior instability alone compared with patients with concomitant rotator cuff tears.

Abbreviation: ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.

ASES Scores. Mean preoperative ASES scores for patients with RCTs improved significantly (t = –13.8, P < .001), as did those for patients without rotator cuff pathology (t = –8.9, P < .001). No significant differences in ASES score were found between patients with and without rotator cuff pathology before or after surgery (t = 1.9, P = .07; t = .58, P = .06). In addition, 70.8% (17/24) of throwing athletes with rotator cuff pathology had an excellent postoperative outcome (ASES score >80), and 29.2% (7/24) had a satisfactory outcome (ASES score, 60-80). Thus, 100% of those with concomitant posterior shoulder instability and RCTs had a good or excellent outcome after surgical intervention. In those without rotator cuff pathology, 78.1% (25/32) had an excellent outcome, 12.5% (4/32) had a satisfactory outcome, and 9.4% (3/32) had a poor outcome. Thus, 91% of those without rotator cuff pathology had a good or excellent outcome after surgery.

Stability. Preoperative stability scores improved significantly after surgery in both groups (t = 7.2, P < .001; t = 10.5, P < .001). There were no statistical differences between preoperative or postoperative stability scores in those with or without rotator cuff pathology (t = 1.7, P = .095; t = .03, P = .975). Of throwing athletes with RCTs, 54.2% (13/24) had an excellent outcome, 33.3% (8/24) a good outcome, and 12.5% (3/24) a satisfactory outcome. Thus, 87.5% (21/24) of those with RCTs had a good or excellent outcome in terms of stability. In those without rotator cuff pathology, 46.9% (15/32) had excellent stability, 46.9% (15/32) had good stability, and 3.1% (1/32) had satisfactory stability after surgery. Thus, 93.8% (30/32) of throwing athletes without rotator cuff pathology had good or excellent stability after surgery.

Pain. Mean preoperative pain scores for those with and without rotator cuff pathology improved significantly (t = 13.4, P < .001; t = 7.1, P < .001). There was no statistical difference in preoperative or postoperative pain scores between those with and without rotator cuff pathology (t = 1.99, P = .051; t = .49, P = .627).

Function. Mean preoperative function scores for both groups improved significantly (t = 7.7, P < .001; t = 8.0, P < .001). There was no difference in improvement in functional scores between the two groups before or after surgery (t = .36, P = .721; t = .5, P = .622).

Continue to: ROM