{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036508463325589116, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02555592432791238, 'mean_word_length': 5.138492871690428, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical and Structural Results of Rotator Cuff Repair Compared With Rotator Cuff Debridement in Arthroscopic Treatment of Calcifying Tendinitis of the Shoulder

Background: Arthroscopic treatment of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder reveals good to excellent results. However, whether the tendon needs to be repaired after removal of the calcific deposit or simply debrided remains unclear. Purpose: To evaluate the structural and clinical results after arthroscopic calcific deposit removal with additional rotator cuff repair or rotator cuff debridement. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 44 patients (46 shoulders) were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up of 58.4 months. Patients underwent arthroscopic removal of a calcific deposit and bursectomy after failed nonoperative treatment. A total of 22 patients received additional rotator cuff repair irrespective of the degree of debridement (the repair group), whereas 22 patients received a simple rotator cuff debridement without additional repair (the debridement group). Groups were comparable in sex, age, and size and consistency of the deposits according to the Gärtner and Bosworth classifications. Clinical evaluation was performed by the Constant score, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and numerical rating scales for pain, function, and satisfaction. In 29 patients (14 in the debridement group and 15 in the repair group), additional magnetic resonance imaging at follow-up was performed to evaluate the structural results using the Sugaya classification. Results: All patients were satisfied with the results of surgery; 100% of the repair group and 95.7% of the debridement group reported they would undergo the surgical procedure again. Comparison of the clinical results showed significantly better results in the repair group versus the debridement group for the Constant score (86.2 vs 80.6, respectively; P = .04), the ASES score (98.3 vs 88.9; P = .004), the Simple Shoulder Test (11.6 vs 10; P = .005), and the numerical rating scales for pain (0.1 vs 0.8; P = .007), function (9.6 vs 8.8; P = .008), and satisfaction (9.8 vs 9.1; P = .036). Comparison of the postoperative tendon integrity showed 80% Sugaya grade I in the rotator cuff repair group and 64% Sugaya grade II in the debridement group, with a statistically significant difference in favor of the repair group (P = .004). Postoperative clinical evaluation revealed no positive O’Brien tests in the repair group, whereas approximately one-third of the debridement group showed a positive O’Brien test during examination. Conclusion: Arthroscopic removal of calcific deposits with rotator cuff debridement or cuff repair showed good to excellent clinical and structural midterm results. However, patients who underwent additional repair of the tendon defect had significantly better clinical results as well as better structural results in terms of tendon integrity.