A comparison of early versus delayed repair of XXXX @entity717 .

@entity1 @entity717 @entity130
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results between early and delayed operative treatment in @entity1 with @entity130 @entity717 ( @entity717 ). METHODS: Thirty-five @entity1 with a @entity130 @entity717 who have been treated surgically during a 4-year period were included in the study. The results of early versus delayed repair of @entity130 rotator @entity717 were assessed using the Constant and UCLA scores. In addition, all @entity1 underwent a postoperative MRI to evaluate repair integrity. Early repair (within 3  weeks) was performed in 15 @entity1 (group I) and delayed repair (after 3  weeks) in the rest 20 @entity1 (group II). The time interval between injury and operation was 12 and 131  days on average for group I and II, respectively. RESULTS: Follow-up time was 34 and 38  months for group I and II, respectively. Postoperatively, the UCLA score was 31 and 26 (P  <  0.05) for group I and II, respectively. The Constant score was 82 and 70 (P  <  0.05) for group I and II, respectively. Range of motion was significantly better in group I. According to MRI, 5 @entity1 (33%) in the group I and 7 @entity1 (35%) in the group II had a retear. CONCLUSIONS: Early repair of a @entity130 @entity717 provides better results in terms of shoulder function in comparison with a delayed repair. A delayed diagnosis of a @entity130 @entity717 leads to difficulties in surgery and less good results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic, retrospective, comparative study.
