Arthroscopic treatment of chronic calcific tendinitis with complete removal and rotator cuff tendon repair
- 536 Downloads
Relatively large calcific materials on radiographs of shoulders with persistent symptoms after extended periods of conservative treatment are candidates for operative treatment. But complete removal of calcific materials sometimes leaves a large defect in the rotator cuff tendon, and tendon repair might be essential if defects are large. We evaluated the clinical results of complete removal of calcific deposits with or without repair of the rotator cuff tendon in 35 consecutive patients. Eighteen patients underwent calcific material removal, which resulted in a complete tear in the rotator cuff tendon, and suture anchor repair. And the other 17 patients received either side-to-side repair or simple debridement. Clinical outcomes improved at a median 31 (range 24–45) months after surgery, and pain relief was achieved within 6 months of surgery in 30 of 35. However, ten patients developed a secondary stiff shoulder. Repair with or without suture anchor after complete removal of calcific material provides good clinical results and earlier pain relief when it was compared to previous literatures of minimal removal technique.
KeywordsCalcific tendinitis Shoulder Complete removal Rotator cuff repair
This material has not been given prior or duplicate submission or publication elsewhere at any part of the work. Institutional review board approved the present study.
Conflict of interest statement
We have no financial or other relationships that might lead to a conflict of interest.
- 3.Gazielly D, Bruyere G, Gleyze P, Thomas T (1997) Open acromioplasty with excision of calcium deposits and tendon suture. In: The cuff. Elsevier, Paris, pp 172–175Google Scholar
- 10.Resch H, Povacz P, Seykora P (1997) Excision of calcium deposit and acromioplasty? In: The cuff. Elsevier, Paris, pp 169–171Google Scholar
- 15.Uhthoff H (1997) Anatomopathology of calcifying tendinitis of the cuff. In: The Cuff. Elsevier, Paris, pp 144–146Google Scholar