AIMTo compare the functional outcomes of traumatic and non-traumatic rotator cuff tears after arthroscopic repair.METHODSEighty-seven patients with rotator cuff tears following arthroscopic treatment were divided into traumatic and non-traumatic tear groups. Postoperative muscle strength and outcomes using the modified University of California, Los Angeles score were evaluated. Sex, age, affected limb and dominant limb were correlated between groups. Muscle strength of the repaired and unaffected shoulders was compared. Rotator cuff injury size was measured.RESULTSOf the 87 patients who underwent rotator cuff repairs, 35 had traumatic tears and 52 had non-traumatic tears. In patients with non-traumatic tears, the average age was 59 years, 74.5% were female, 96.1% were right-hand dominant and 92.3% had their dominant shoulder affected. Patients with traumatic tears were 59.5 years old on average, 51.4% were female, 91.4% were right-hand dominant and 88.5% had their dominant shoulder affected. No difference existed in the mean modified University of California, Los Angeles score between patients with traumatic tears (33.7) compared with those with non-traumatic tears (32.8). No strength differences were observed between groups: The strength difference between the non-affected and affected sides was 1.21 kg in the non-traumatic group and 1.39 kg in the traumatic group (P = 0.576), while the strength ratio between the non-affected/affected sides was 0.805 in the non-traumatic group and 0.729 in the traumatic group (P = 0.224).CONCLUSIONThe functional results of traumatic rotator cuff repairs are similar to non-traumatic tears. Both outcomes are satisfactory.

Background Although tenotomy and tenodesis are frequently used for long head of the biceps tendon lesions, controversies remain as to which technique is superior regarding pain, functionality, complications, and cosmetic appearance. Questions/purposes: (1) For long head of biceps tendon lesions, does tenotomy or tenodesis result in greater improvements in VAS score for pain? (2) Which approach has superior results when evaluating function outcome (Constant) scores? (3) Does tenotomy or tenodesis have fewer complications? (4) Does tenotomy or tenodesis result in better cosmesis (Popeye sign)? Methods A systematic review was performed in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) using the keywords “long head of the biceps tendon,” “biceps tenodesis,” and “tenotomy.” We completed the search in June 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and quasirandomized controlled trials that investigated tenodesis and tenotomy with no language restriction and evaluation of adult patients who presented with a long head of the biceps tendon lesion, associated with other lesions or not, without previous shoulder surgeries and who had no response to nonoperative treatment. The initial search yielded 239 studies, 40 of which were duplicates. We assessed the titles and abstracts of 199 articles and excluded all studies that were not randomized controlled trials (literature reviews) or that compared different techniques. We assessed the full text of 14 articles and excluded the ones that were protocols and cohort studies. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. We included eight studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 615 participants, 306 of whom were treated with tenotomy and 309 with tenodesis. The median duration of follow-up was 2 years. Overall, the included studies had a low risk of bias. The complications evaluated were adhesive capsulitis, biceps brachii tear, cramps, and a subsequent second surgical procedure. We used a random model in this meta-analysis so that we could generalize the results beyond the included studies. In this study, we only reported differences between the groups if they were both statistically valid and larger than the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results Comparing tenotomy and tenodesis, we observed no difference between the groups regarding pain in the long term (mean difference 0.25 [95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.80]; p = 0.36). There was no difference in Constant score in the long-term (mean difference -1.45 [95% CI -2.96 to 0.06]; p = 0.06). There were no differences when evaluating for major complications (odds ratio 1.37 [95% CI 0.29 to 6.56]; p = 0.70). There were not enough papers evaluating adhesive capsulitis, cramping, and risk of revision surgery. Popeye sign was more frequent in the tenotomy group than in the tenodesis group (OR 4.70 [95% CI 2.71 to 8.17]; p < 0.001). Conclusion This systematic review demonstrated that tenotomy and tenodesis offer satisfactory treatment for long head of the biceps tendon lesions. In terms of pain improvement and Constant score, there was no difference between the techniques, but patients undergoing tenotomy have worse cosmetic results. Therefore, surgeons should choose the technique based on their skills and the patient’s expectations of surgery, such as cosmesis and time to recovery. More studies are needed to evaluate complications such as adhesive capsulitis and cramping, as well as to compare duration of surgery and recovery time for each technique. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Diabetic retinopathy is a disease caused by increased permeability of retinal vessels. Its incidence and prevalence have been increasing due to urbanization, greater life expectancy and the habits of modern life. Its onset is insidious and it may lead to blindness in 75% of individuals who have been diabetic for more than 20 years. The aim here was to evaluate the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions relating to diabetic retinopathy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted at Cochrane Brazil. METHODS:We included Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions relating to diabetic retinopathy. Two researchers evaluated the inclusion criteria, summarized the reviews and presented the results narratively. RESULTS: Ten reviews met the inclusion criteria. They showed some evidence of benefits from: (a) photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy; (b) strict glucose and pressure control for postponing the onset of retinopathy; (c) antiangiogenic drugs for macular edema (high-quality evidence); (d) anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (very low to low-quality evidence); and (e) intravitreal injection or surgical implantation for treating persistent or refractory macular edema. However, blood pressure control seems to have no benefit after the onset of retinopathy. CONCLUSION: Only a few options are likely to be effective for treating diabetic retinopathy. These include photocoagulation and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Strict glucose and pressure control seem to postpone the onset of retinopathy. For macular edema, antiangiogenic drugs, intravitreal injection and surgical implantation seem to have some benefit. RESUMO CONTEXTO:A retinopatia diabética é uma doença causada pelo aumento da permeabilidade dos vasos da retina. Sua incidência e prevalência vêm aumentando devido à urbanização, maior expectativa de vida e hábitos de vida modernos. Seu início é insidioso e pode levar à cegueira em 75% dos pacientes diabéti-cos com mais de 20 anos de doença. O objetivo foi avaliar a evidência das revisões sistemáticas Cochrane sobre intervenções para retinopatia diabética.