• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.91-99
• /
• 2019

Most patients experience pain relief and functional improvement after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In some patients, however, symptoms still remain after surgery. Failed rotator cuff repair is a complex outcome of biological, technical, and traumatic factors. Moreover, re-tears might or might not be the main cause for patients with persistent pain after rotator cuff repair. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the patient's history, physical examination, and appropriate imaging studies will be needed to evaluate and manage these patients. The patient's age, functional requirement, quality of the rotator cuff, preoperative range of motion, quality of the deltoid, and glenohumeral arthritis are factors to consider before performing revisional rotator cuff repair. Preoperative patient education is as important as the surgical technique for successful revisional rotator cuff repair.

• Journal of the Korean Arthroscopy Society
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.119-125
• /
• 2009

The primary purposes of revision repair for a failed rotator cuff repair are a relief of pain and functional improvement. Therefore, revision repair is most proper in patients with the functional deficit accompanied with the shoulder weakness as well as the persistent pain. The important factor that is considered in revision repair is a quality of torn cuff. Especially, Care must be taken to ensure that the revision repair is possible, considering the size of tendon defect, atrophy of the muscle, fatty infiltration and extent of the retraction of tendon. Revision repair of a failed rotator cuff repair is more difficult, and the functional results are less satisfactory than those of primary repair, because excessive bursal scarring and tendon retraction may be exhibited, a large or massive tear is often detected, tear has usually been present for a long time, and a quality of muscle-tendon may be poor. So, we discuss our experiences related to revision repair after a failed cuff repair that has been recently introduced through the articles.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.38 no.11 s.256
• /
• pp.783-787
• /
• 2005

Eight patients underwvnt reoperation after valve replacement surgery with a mechanical valve from January, 1992 to December, 2003. Among the various indications for reoperation, there were 4 patients with paravalvular leakage; 3 patients underwent resuturing of the area of leakage and one patient underwent redo valve replacement. Among the three patients with stenosis due to thrombosis of the valve, 2 patients underwent redo valve replacement and one patient underwent thrombectomy. In one patient, the valve functioned normally, but stenosis was caused by overgrowth of the patient and redo valve replacement was done 123 months later. There was no postoperative mortality or morbidity. After an average of 51 months ($2\~134$ months) of postoperative follow up, the patients were in good condition and were able to maintain a NYHA functional class of I or II. The operative method used, whether it be a redo valve replacement or valve sparing method, depends upon the type of lesion and the anatomic structure.