Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Arthroskopische Rotatorenmanschettennaht

Sinn oder Unsinn?

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Sense or nonsense?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Obere Extremität Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die arthroskopische Versorgung der Rotatorenmanschette ist bei vielen Chirurgen zu einem Standardverfahren in der Schulterchirurgie geworden. Der vorliegende Artikel stellt die Ergebnisse dieser Technik zu konkurrierenden Verfahren wie der offenen oder mini-offenen Versorgung anhand der vorhandenen Studien dar. Dies soll dem Schulterchirurgen eine unabhängige Standortbestimmung ermöglichen. Anhand der bisher publizierten Daten kann entsprechend einer eigenen Analyse keine eindeutige Empfehlung für eine der beiden Techniken gegeben werden. Sowohl die (mini-)offene Technik als auch die arthroskopische Technik ermöglichen gute bis sehr gute klinische Ergebnisse, die vor allem von der präoperativen Rissgröße und der Degeneration des anhängigen Muskels beeinflusst werden. Nichtsdestotrotz bietet das Erlernen der arthroskopischen Technik Vorteile z. B. bei der Versorgung von Partialrupturen und anderen minimal-invasiv zu behandelnden Pathologien.

Abstract

Arthrocopic repair of rotator cuff ruptures has become a standard procedure in shoulder surgery. This review article compares the outcome of the arthroscopic technique to the (mini-) open technique. The reviewed papers do not show a clear superiority of one or the other technique: both allow for good to excellent outcomes depending on the preoperative tear size and muscle degeneration. Nevertheless, mastering the arthroscopic technique enables the surgeon to treat partial ruptures and other intraarticular lesions minimally invasively, which may have benefits over the open technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Buess E, Steuber KU, Waibl B (2005) Open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a comparative view of 96 cases. Arthroscopy 21:597–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Churchill RS, Ghorai JK (2010) 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

  3. Cofield RH, Parvizi J, Hoffmeyer PJ et al (2001) Surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tears. A prospective long-term study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:71–77

    Google Scholar 

  4. Colegate-Stone T, Allom R, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J (2009) An analysis of outcome of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair using subjective and objective scoring tools. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:691–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchs B, Gilbart MK, Hodler J, Gerber C (2006) Clinical and structural results of open repair of an isolated one-tendon tear of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:309–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gill DR, Cofield RH, Rowland C (2004) The anteromedial approach for shoulder arthroplasty: the importance of the anterior deltoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:532–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P et al (2003) Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:550–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hata Y, Saitoh S, Murakami N et al (2004) Atrophy of the deltoid muscle following rotator cuff surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1414–1419

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K (2005) A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 21:1090–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kasten P, Keil C, Grieser T et al (2010) Prospective randomized comparison of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair of the supraspinatus tendon. Presented at the DVSE Congress, Rosenheim, 7–8 May 2010

  11. Kim SH, Ha KI, Park JH et al (2003) Arthroscopic versus mini-open salvage repair of the rotator cuff tear: outcome analysis at 2 to 6 years‘ follow-up. Arthroscopy 19:746–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kose KC, Tezen E, Cebesoy O et al (2008) Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: comparison of the operative costs and the clinical outcomes. Adv Ther 25:249–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Millar NL, Wu X, Tantau R et al (2009) Open versus two forms of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:966–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mohtadi NG, Hollinshead RM, Sasyniuk TM et al (2008) A randomized clinical trial comparing open to arthroscopic acromioplasty with mini-open rotator cuff repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: disease-specific quality of life outcome at an average 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 36:1043–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Osti L, Papalia R, Paganelli M et al (2010) Arthroscopic vs mini-open rotator cuff repair. A quality of life impairment study. Int Orthop 34:389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patte D (1990) Classification of rotator cuff lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 81–86

  17. Rickert M, Witzel U, Kolbel R, Georgousis H (2002) Primary strength of conventional and alternative suture techniques of the rotator cuff. A biomechanical study. Unfallchirurg 105:23–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sano H, Yamashita T, Wakabayashi I, Itoi E (2007) Stress distribution in the supraspinatus tendon after tendon repair: suture anchors versus transosseous suture fixation. Am J Sports Med 35:542–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sauerbrey AM, Getz CL, Piancastelli M et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcome. Arthroscopy 21:1415–1420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Severud EL, Ruotolo C, Abbott DD, Nottage WM (2003) All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a long-term retrospective outcome comparison. Arthroscopy 19:234–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomazeau H, Rolland Y, Lucas C et al (1996) Atrophy of the supraspinatus belly. Assessment by MRI in 55 patients with rotator cuff pathology. Acta Orthop Scand 67:264–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Verma NN, Dunn W, Adler RS et al (2006) All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a retrospective review with minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 22:587–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Warner JJ, Tetreault P, Lehtinen J, Zurakowski D (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a cohort comparison study. Arthroscopy 21:328–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yamaguchi K, Ball CM, Galatz LM (2001) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: transition from mini-open to all-arthroscopic. Clin Orthop Relat Res 83–94

  25. Youm T, Murray DH, Kubiak EN et al (2005) Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: a comparison of clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:455–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie , Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland

    P. Kasten

Authors
  1. P. Kasten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Kasten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kasten, P. Arthroskopische Rotatorenmanschettennaht. Obere Extremität 6, 19–23 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-011-0103-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-011-0103-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation