الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 191 |  |  |
| | | from | 191 | | |
Abstract
Background: Massive rotator cuff tears (RTCs) are the most common cause of shoulder disability and represent challenging problem for shoulder surgeons. With clinically insidious onset of progressive shoulder pain, weakness and limitation of movement. Different treatment modalities are available for massive rotator cuff tears; including conservative measures (e.g. physiotherapy and subacromial corticosteroids /platelet-rich plasma injection) and surgical procedures (e.g. arthroscopic-assisted and all-arthroscopic repair). Both arthroscopic-assisted and all-arthroscopic rotator cuff repair can result in significant improvement in clinical and functional outcomes.
Aim of the work: The aim of this work is to compare the results of arthroscopic-assisted versus all-arthroscopic suture anchor repair of massive rotator cuff tears especially regarding post-operative return to work.
Patients and methods: Between September 2019 till September 2021, this prospective cohort study was conducted including 38 patients of massive rotator cuff tears who were mutually distributed into group-(A) of 19 patients (managed by arthroscopic-assisted procedure); and group-(B) of 19 patients (managed by all-arthroscopic procedure). Patients were evaluated for demographics and for pre-operative and 6-month post-operative ROM, provocative tests, UCLA score and post-operative time to return to work.
SUMMARY
153
Results: Statistically, there was highly significant improvement in post-operative ROM and provocative tests. Highly significant improvement in post-operative UCLA score, in arthroscopic-assisted group (group A), mean score was 29.53±6.33 with satisfactory results in 15 (78.9%) patients [excellent results in 6 (31.6%) and good results in 9 (47.3%) patients] and unsatisfactory (poor) results in 4 (21.1%) patient, While in all-arthroscopic group (group B), mean score was 29.00±5.93, satisfactory results in 14 (73.7%) patients [excellent results in 6 (31.6%) and good results in 8 (42.1%) patients] and unsatisfactory (poor) results in 5 (26.3%) patients with statistically non-significant difference between both procedures.
Post-operative return to work in arthroscopic-assisted group (group A), 78.9% of patients returned to pre-injury similar work in (5.53±0.96) months and in all-arthroscopic group (group B), 73.7% of patients returned to pre-injury similar work in (5.32±0.95) months. However there was statistically non-significant difference between arthroscopic-assisted and all-arthroscopic procedures regarding post-operative return to work.