Pro ultra-Mesh Augmentation in the Rotator Cuff Repair: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial

Mohammad Reza Guity; Nima Bagheri; Amir Heydari

doi:10.18502/jost.v9i2.12624

Mohammad Reza Guity Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedics, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Nima Bagheri Associate Professor, Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Amir Heydari Resident, Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/jost.v9i2.12624

Keywords: Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trial; Rotator Cuff Injuries

Abstract

Background: Rotator cuff tears present in about 20% of the population. This has prompted surgeons to look for techniques to augment the rotator cuff tear repair. This study aimed to assess the results of Ultrapro mesh augmentation in patients with massive and large rotator cuff tears as a clinical trial.

Methods: The study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients were randomly divided into two groups. Both groups underwent surgery. In one, Ultrapro mesh was used to augment the repair. Therapeutic outcome was assessed by using a joint range of motion, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results: 60 patients were included, of whom 47 were men. Forward flexion (FF), abduction, external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) degree increased significantly in both groups (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of changes in these angles (P > 0.05). During the study period and in both groups, the OSS score decreased, and the SST score increased. The pain in both groups decreased until the sixth month and increased after that up to the twelfth month.

Conclusion: Although the use of Ultrapro mesh augmentation in the rotator cuff tear has been associated with better long-term results in the abduction and ER of patients, the effect on the patients’ clinical results is not significant. Further studies are needed to make a more accurate judgment.