ObjectiveTo explorethe method and effectivenessofarthroscopically assisted treatmentof rotator cuff injury. MethodsBetween November 2009 and March 2011, 27 patients with rotator cuff injury were treated. There were 17 males and 10 females with a mean age of 43.6 years (range, 29-66 years). The disease duration was1 to 36 months (mean, 27months). The location was theleft shoulder in 11 cases and theright shoulder in 16 cases. Of them, 12 cases had a history of trauma and 15 caseshad no obvious predisposing causes. All patients had limitation of shoulder flexionandabduction. Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of the shoulder and the out-let X-ray films of the supraspinous muscle were taken. According to the acromion classification of Bigliani, there were 5 cases of type I, 13 cases of type II, and 9 cases of type III. MRI images showed all patients had rupture of the rotator cuff. The examination of shoulder arthroscope showed complete rupture of the supraspinatus muscle in 27 cases and acromion impingement in 23 cases. The patients without impingement underwent tear debridement, and the patients with impingement underwent acromioplasty and resection of subacromial bursa after tear debridement. The 3-4 cm incision was made with arthroscopically assisted positioning, and the metal suture anchorwas placed on the greater tubercle of humerus to repair rotator cuff. ResultsAll incisions healed primarily. All patients were followed up 13-27 months (mean, 19 months). No infection, loosening of internal fixation, and rotator cuffre-tearoccurred. Pain was relieved and the results was satisfactory after operation. The shoulder range of motion (ROM) at last follow-up was significantly improved when compared with preoperative ROM (P lt; 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score was significantly improved from 8.0 ± 1.8 at preoperation to 1.6 ± 0.7 at 2 weeks after operation and 0.8 ± 0.7 at last follow-up (Plt; 0.05); the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score of shoulder was significantly increased from 18.8 ± 6.6 at preoperation to 32.2 ± 3.3at 3months after operation and 33.6 ± 2.1 at last follow-up (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The effectivenessofarthroscopically assisted treatmentof rotator cuff injury is satisfactory. However, long-termeffectiveness needs furtherfollow-up observation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proximal aortic repair (PAR) versus total arch replacement (TAR) for treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Methods An electronic search was conducted for clinical controlled studies on PAR versus TAR for patients with ATAAD published in Medline via PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database and CNKI since their inception up to April 30, 2022. The quality of each study included was assessed by 2 evaluators and the necessary data were extracted. STATA 16 software was used to perform statistical analysis of the available data. ResultsA total of 28 cohort studies involving 7 923 patients with ATAAD were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5 710 patients received PAR and 2 213 patients underwent TAR, and 96.43% of the studies (27/28) were rated as high quality. The meta-analysis results showed that: (1) patients who underwent PAR had lower incidences of 30 d mortality [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.50, 0.77), P＜0.001], in-hospital mortality [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.54, 0.77), P＜0.001], and neurologic deficiency after surgery [RR=0.84, 95%CI (0.72, 0.98), P=0.032] than those who received TAR; (2) the cardiopulmonary bypass time [WMD=–52.07, 95%CI (–74.19, –29.94), P＜0.001], circulatory arrest time [WMD=–10.14, 95%CI (–15.02, –5.26), P＜0.001], and operation time [WMD=–101.68, 95%CI (–178.63, –24.73), P＜0.001] were significantly shorter in PAR than those in TAR; (3) there was no statistical difference in mortality after discharge, rate of over 5-year survival, renal failure after surgery and re-intervention, volume of red blood cells transfusion and fresh-frozen plasma transfusion, or hospital stay between two surgical procedures. Conclusion Compared with TAR, PAR has a shorter operation time and lower early and in-hospital mortality, but there is no difference in long-term outcomes or complications between the two procedures for patients with ATAAD.