Outcomes of Concomitant Glenohumeral Stabilization After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in Military Patients Younger Than 40 Years

• Published in: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine Vol. 12; no. 3; p. 23259671231218970
• Main Authors: Green, Clare K., Scanaliato, John P., Sandler, Alexis B., Patrick, Cole M., Dunn, John C., Parnes, Nata
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.03.2024; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Postoperative period; Rotator cuff; labral repair; military; rotator cuff repair; instability
• ISSN: 2325-9671; 2325-9671
• DOI: 10.1177/23259671231218970

Background: While concomitant rotator cuff and inferior labral tears are relatively uncommon in young civilians, military populations represent a unique opportunity to study this injury pattern. Purpose: To (1) evaluate the long-term outcomes after combined arthroscopic rotator cuff and inferior labral repair in military patients <40 years and (2) compare functional outcomes with those after isolated arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Military patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between January 2011 and December 2016 and had a minimum of 5-year follow-up data were included in this study. The patients were categorized into those who had undergone combined arthroscopic rotator cuff and inferior labral repair (RCIL cohort) and those who had isolated arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR cohort). Pre- and postoperative outcome measures—visual analog scale for pain, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score, Rowe Instability Score, and range of motion—were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 50 shoulders (27 in the RCIL cohort and 23 in the ARCR cohort) were assessed. The RCIL and ARCR groups were similar in terms of age (mean, 33.19 years [range, 21-39 years] vs 35.39 years [range, 26-39 years], respectively) and sex (% male, 88.46% vs 82.61%, respectively). All patients were active-duty military at the time of surgery. The mean final follow-up was at 106.93 ± 16.66 months for the RCIL group and 105.70 ± 7.52 months for the ARCR group (P = .75). There were no differences in preoperative outcome scores between groups. Postoperatively, both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in all outcome scores (P < .0001 for all), and there were no significant group differences in any final postoperative outcome measures. At the final follow-up, 26 (96.30%) patients in the RCIL cohort and 20 (86.96%) in the ARCR cohort had returned to unrestricted active-duty military service (P = .3223). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that concomitant glenohumeral stabilization does not portend worse outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in military patients < 40 years. Combined repair produced statistically and clinically significant improvements in outcome scores at the long-term follow-up, indicating that simultaneous repair of combined lesions was an appropriate treatment option in this patient population.