4.3 Article

A cross-sectional study of demographic and morphologic features of rotator cuff disease in paraplegic patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 1108-1113

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.021

Keywords

Paraplegia; shoulder; rotator cuff; pain; spinal cord injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study analyzed the demographic and morphologic features of rotator cuff disease in paraplegic patients who presented with or without shoulder pain. Methods: Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging examinations of both shoulders were performed in 317 paraplegic patients. Mean age was 49 (range, 19-76) years. The level of spinal cord injury was between T2 and T7 In 54% of patients and between T8 and L3 in 46%. Constant scores were measured for all shoulders. Pain was analyzed using a visual analog scale. Results: Rotator cuff tears were not present in 51%, were unilateral in 20%, and were bilateral in 29%. Age was older and duration of spinal cord injury was significantly longer in patients with bilateral tears than in patients without or with unilateral tears (P < .001). In patients with unilateral tears, a full-thickness rupture of the supraspinatus tendon was found in 67%, whereas a partial-rupture was detected in 33%. Of the patients with bilateral tears, 75% presented with a full-thickness rupture and 25% with a partial rupture. The mean Constant score was 76 (range, 37-98) in patients without cuff tears, 69 (range, 16-94) for patients with unilateral tears, and 64 (16-96) for patients with bilateral tears (P < .001). Conclusions: Rotator cuff disease is common and correlates highly with age and duration of spinal cord injury, which underlines the theory of wear and tear'' in wheelchair-dependent patients. Level of evidence: Level III, Cross-Sectional Survey, Epidemiology Study. (C) 2011 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available