title: Clinical and radiographic factors influencing the results of revision rotator cuff repair.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Historically, results of open revision of rotator cuff repair have been mixed and often poor. We reviewed the outcomes of revision rotator cuff repair with a detailed analysis of clinical and radiographic risk factors in order to improve patient selection for this type of surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-six patients (37 shoulders) underwent first-time, open revision rotator cuff repair between 1995 and 2005. Average follow-up was 7.0 years (range 1-14.9 years). The tear size was small in 1 shoulder, medium in 8, large in 22 and massive in 6. Associations of 29 clinical and radiographic factors with the outcomes of pain, motion, and function were assessed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Satisfactory outcome occurred in 22 shoulders (59%): An excellent result in 2, a good result in 7, and a fair result in 13. Unsatisfactory, poor results occurred in 15. Pain was substantially reduced in 25 (68%). Median pain scores decreased to five from a pre-operative eight (P = 0.002). Median motion did not change from pre-operative to post-operative. The chance of a satisfactory outcome and improved post-operative motion were associated with males, greater pre-operative motion, increased acromial humeral distance, the absence of glenohumeral arthritis, or a degenerative re-tear.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Revision rotator cuff repair, although a safe operation, with a low re-operative rate, has very mixed overall results. By knowing the factors associated with success, surgeons can better counsel patients and with this increased knowledge, consider alternative treatment choices.
authors: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
authors: Robert U
authors: RU
authors: Hartzler
authors: John W
authors: JW
authors: Sperling
authors: Cathy D
authors: CD
authors: Schleck
authors: Robert H
authors: RH
authors: Cofield
keywords: Factor analysis; revision; rotator cuff; shoulder
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Dec;74(10):1505-15
references: 1469010
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Dec;67(9):1349-55
references: 4077906
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):37-46
references: 11182734
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Dec;83(12):1849-55
references: 11741065
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Apr;66(4):563-7
references: 6707035
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Apr;65(4):456-60
references: 6833319
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jul;83(7):1052-6
references: 11451975
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):550-4
references: 14671517
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jul;89(7):1476-85
references: 17606786
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jan;83(1):71-7
references: 11205861
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Nov 3;92(15):2544-56
references: 21048173
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Oct;68(8):1136-44
references: 3771595
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):591-7
references: 21398148
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992 Nov;1(6):283-6
references: 22959250
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):527-40
references: 16979046
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar;88(3):508-13
references: 16510815