Smokers Achieved Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Visual Analog Scale and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Scores at a Lower Rate Than Nonsmokers Even When Repaired Supraspinatus Tendons Were Intact on Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

<p>Purpose: To investigate the impact of smoking on clinical outcomes after repair of supraspinatus tendon in patients who had an intact repair found on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. <br></p><p>Methods: Patients who received primary complete repair of supraspinatus tendon tear between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively identi!ed. Patients were excluded if a postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan was not available or if the follow-up was less than 2 years. Visual analog score (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and active forward flexion were assessed at the 2-year follow-up. The percentage of patients acquiring minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported. <br></p><p>Results: One hundred primary supraspinatus tendon repairs were included. The healing rate was 77% in smokers and 90% in nonsmokers. Smoking was the independent predictor of a poorer 2-year VAS (P < .001) and ASES (P < .001) scores. Significant improvement in clinical outcomes was observed between preoperation and the 2-year follow-up, regardless of the integrity of the repair or smoking status (P < .001). When the repaired tendon was intact, nonsmokers had a greater chance of achieving MCID in 2-year VAS and ASES scores than smokers. Ninety-nine percent of nonsmokers, compared with 82% of smokers, achieved MCID in VAS at the 2-year follow-up (P = .023). The corresponding figures for ASES were 98% and 71%, respectively (P = .004). <br></p><p>Conclusions: In this study, smoking was associated with poorer clinical outcomes, including a greater 2-year VAS pain score and a lower 2-year ASES score, when compared with nonsmokers, even in cases in which there was no full-thickness retear of the repaired supraspinatus tendon. <br></p><p>Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.<br></p>