Why Does my Shoulder Hurt? Understanding the Presence of Pain in Individuals With Full-thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Why Does my Shoulder Hurt? Identifying Factors Associated With the Presence of Pain in Individuals With Full-thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
Full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCT), defined as "through-and-through" tears of one of the shoulder tendons, affect up to 32% of the population (mostly individuals older than 50 years) and are one of the most painful and debilitating shoulder diagnoses. One of the primary challenges for clinical decision-making is the poor association between the presence of FTRCT (detected by medical imaging) and pain, as studies have shown that 2/3 of people with FTRCT are asymptomatic. This challenges the notion that FTRCT causes pain, and highlights the fact that symptoms may be explained by other variables. A better understanding of the factors leading to the development of pain in people with FTRCT would optimize clinical care (including prevention).
The objective of this study is to identify variables associated with pain in people with FTRCT by 1) comparing people with FTRCT with (Symptomatic Group; n=40) and without pain (Asymptomatic Group; n=40); 2) comparing people who initially have pain-free FTRCT (Asymptomatic Group) who develop pain over a 2-year period to those who do not develop pain; and 3) comparing people who initially have painful FTRCT (Symptomatic Group) who become pain-free over a 2-year period to those who remain symptomatic. All participants will undergo an ultrasound examination to confirm the presence of FTRCT, and information on a number of variables (sociodemographic, anatomical, genetic, psychosocial, pain sensitivity, neuromuscular, biomechanical) will be collected. All participants will then be followed for 2 years before being revaluated for pain. Variables will be analysed to determine those associated with pain. As it is crucial to improve our understanding of the mechanisms leading to pain, this project has the potential to impact the musculoskeletal health of Canadians. By considering multiple variables associated with FTRCT, its results could lead to the development of tangible solutions to optimize prevention and recovery.
Studieoversigt
Status
Betingelser
Detaljeret beskrivelse
Background: Symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCT) affect up to 32% of the population and represent one of the more painful and debilitating shoulder diagnoses. The prevailing model for care pathway decisions is heavily influenced by medical imaging. Yet, the association between FTRCT observed on medical imaging and the presence of pain is poor, as two thirds of FTRCT are asymptomatic. This poses a great challenge to clinical decision-making and questions the belief that FTRCT causes pain. As other factors may explain the presence of pain, a better understanding of this phenomenon needs to be sought.
Objective/hypothesis: The primary objective is to identify variables associated with the presence of pain in individuals with FTRCT. The hypothesis is that given its complex aetiology, no single outcome will be highly associated with pain, rather it will be important to consider several outcomes and their interactions. Secondary objectives include: to explore if a) baseline variables or b) a change in these variables following baseline can predict the development of pain in individuals who initially have asymptomatic FTRCT, and to study if a) baseline variables or b) a change in these variables following baseline can predict the resolution of pain in individuals who initially have symptomatic FTRCT.
Methods: 40 adults with a FTRCT and shoulder pain (Symptomatic Group), and 40 adults with a FTRCT without shoulder pain (Asymptomatic Group) will be included. They will demonstrate a FTRCT on US examinations performed by a radiologist. Included participants will take part in a baseline evaluation during which sociodemographic, anatomical, genetic, psychosocial, pain sensitivity, neuromuscular and biomechanical variables will be assessed. The primary objective (cross-sectional design) will be achieved by determining if differences between groups are based on a sole or on several independent variables, and their relative impact on pain (recursive partitioning, principal component analysis, MANOVA).
The secondary objectives (prospective design) will be achieved by following all participants for 2 years. Every 3 months, the participants will complete a web-based questionnaire asking if they have had shoulder pain. Participants in the Asymptomatic Group who develop pain and participants in the Symptomatic Group who become pain-free will be asked to participate in a follow-up evaluation within a week. Participants who remain pain-free in the Asymptomatic Group and with pain in the Symptomatic Group during the follow-up period will also be asked to participate in a follow-up evaluation at the end of the 2 years (same follow-up evaluation for all participants, similar to baseline evaluations). Logistic regressions will be used to identify the variables associated with pain development and with pain resolution.
Relevance: Before implementing new intervention strategies, a better understanding of factors associated with the presence of pain is needed. By looking at different variables that could explain pain, this project will improve our understanding of FTRCT and fill important knowledge gaps.
Undersøgelsestype
Tilmelding (Forventet)
Kontakter og lokationer
Studiesteder
-
-
Quebec
-
Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
- Rekruttering
- Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS)
-
-
Deltagelseskriterier
Berettigelseskriterier
Aldre berettiget til at studere
Tager imod sunde frivillige
Køn, der er berettiget til at studere
Prøveudtagningsmetode
Studiebefolkning
Beskrivelse
Inclusion Criteria (all participants):
- Presence of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear (on ultrasound examination performed by a radiologist)
- 50 to 80 years of age
- Degenerative tear (no significant trauma)
Inclusion Criteria for the Symptomatic group:
- unilateral or bilateral shoulder pain (at least 2/10 on a visual analog scale [VAS] evaluating usual shoulder pain)
- positive response to: 'In the past 4 weeks, have you had pain in your shoulder' and 'If yes, was this pain bad enough to limit your usual activities or change your daily routine for more than 1 day?'
Inclusion Criteria for the Asymptomatic group:
- report no current shoulder pain (0/10 on a VAS evaluating usual shoulder pain)
- negative response to: 'In the past 4 weeks, have you had pain in your shoulder'
- do not report any past significant shoulder pain (any pain greater than or equal to 2/10 that lasted longer than 4 weeks, required the use of medications or prompted a physician visit)
Exclusion Criteria:
- unable to understand French or English;
- history of upper limb fracture;
- previous shoulder surgery;
- cervicobrachialgia or shoulder pain reproduced by neck movement;
- shoulder capsulitis (restriction of at least 30% in 2 or more directions);
- rheumatoid, inflammatory or neurological diseases;
- corticosteroid injection in the previous 6 weeks;
- cognitive problems interfering with evaluations (Mini-Mental State Examination ≥ 24)
Studieplan
Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?
Design detaljer
- Observationsmodeller: Kohorte
- Tidsperspektiver: Fremadrettet
Kohorter og interventioner
Gruppe / kohorte |
|---|
|
Symptomatic
No intervention.
|
|
Asymptomatic
No intervention.
|
Hvad måler undersøgelsen?
Primære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in usual shoulder pain from baseline: Visual analog scale (VAS)
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period) (Objective 2 and 3)
|
Participants will be asked to rate the intensity of their pain on a VAS from 0 to 10, where "0" represents no pain and "10" represents "worst pain imaginable", in the last week, month and 3 months.
Highest possible score (worst outcome): 30.
Lowest possible score (best outcome): 0. Method to compute total score: sum of each score.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period) (Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
usual shoulder pain from baseline: Visual analog scale (VAS)
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Participants will be asked to rate the intensity of their pain on a VAS from 0 to 10,
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Sekundære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Change from baseline with regard to: Sociodemographic and occupational factors
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
General sociodemographic questionnaire including sex; gender; date of birth; age; height; weight; hand dominance; racial, ethnic or cultural origin; civil status; education level; occupation; employment status; overhead sports activities (currently or previously); household income; smoking habits
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Sociodemographic and occupational factors
Tidsramme: Baseline characteristics (Objective 1)
|
General sociodemographic questionnaire including sex; gender; date of birth; age; height; weight; hand dominance; racial, ethnic or cultural origin; civil status; education level; occupation; employment status; overhead sports activities (currently or previously); household income; smoking habits
|
Baseline characteristics (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in disability and functional limitations of the upper extremity from baseline: QuickDASH
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Questionnaire comprising 11 questions evaluating disability and functional limitations of the upper extremity on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 denotes full capacity and 5 denotes incapacity
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Disability and functional limitations of the upper extremity QuickDASH
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Questionnaire comprising 11 questions evaluating disability and functional limitations of the upper extremity on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 denotes full capacity and 5 denotes incapacity
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in comorbidities from baseline: Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Questionnaire determining the presence or absence of 13 health problems, whether or not the person is treated for each problem, and whether or not the problem interferes with / limits their activities
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Comorbidities: Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Questionnaire determining the presence or absence of 13 health problems, whether or not the person is treated for each problem, and whether or not the problem interferes with / limits their activities
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in sleep disturbance from baseline: PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Questionnaire
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Qualitative questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate greater sleep quality
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Sleep disturbance: PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Questionnaire
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Qualitative questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate greater sleep quality
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in prevalence and frequency of symptoms from baseline: Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Questionnaire evaluating the prevalence of pain (dichotomous scale, "yes" or "no") in all regions of the body (in the last week, last 3 months and last 12 months), and the frequency of pain/symptoms in each region of the body (scale from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicate higher frequency of symptoms)
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Prevalence and frequency of symptoms from baseline: Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Questionnaire evaluating the prevalence of pain (dichotomous scale, "yes" or "no") in all regions of the body (in the last week, last 3 months and last 12 months), and the frequency of pain/symptoms in each region of the body (scale from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicate higher frequency of symptoms)
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in anxiety from baseline: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
6 items each scored on a 4-point scale, higher scores denote greater anxiety
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Anxiety from baseline: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
6 items each scored on a 4-point scale, higher scores denote greater anxiety
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in depressive symptoms from baseline: Patient Health Questionnaire
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
9-item questionnaire evaluating depressive symptoms, on a 4-point scale where higher scores denote higher frequency of depressive symptoms
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Depressive symptoms from baseline: Patient Health Questionnaire
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
9-item questionnaire evaluating depressive symptoms, on a 4-point scale where higher scores denote higher frequency of depressive symptoms
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in perceived stress from baseline: Perceived Stress Scale 4
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
4-item questionnaire, scored on a 5-point scale from 0 ("never") to 4 ("very often").
Higher scores are correlated to more stress.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Perceived stress from baseline: Perceived Stress Scale 4
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
4-item questionnaire, scored on a 5-point scale from 0 ("never") to 4 ("very often").
Higher scores are correlated to more stress.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in upper extremity work demands from baseline: Revised Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale (currently and previously)
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
6-item scale scored from 1 ("rarely / never") to 4 ("almost always"), higher scores indicate greater physical work demands on the upper extremity.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Upper extremity work demands from baseline: Revised Upper Extremity Work Demands Scale (currently and previously)
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
6-item scale scored from 1 ("rarely / never") to 4 ("almost always"), higher scores indicate greater physical work demands on the upper extremity.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in pain catastrophising from baseline: Pain Catastrophising Scale
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
13-item questionnaire, 5-point scale, greater scores indicate more pain catastrophizing.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Pain catastrophising from baseline: Pain Catastrophising Scale
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
13-item questionnaire, 5-point scale, greater scores indicate more pain catastrophizing.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Structural tissue damage of the shoulder from baseline (ultrasound evaluation performed by a radiologist)
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Full thickness rotator cuff tears will be classified by size defined as small (<10 mm), medium (10 to 30 mm) or large (>30 mm)
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Structural tissue damage of the shoulder from baseline (ultrasound evaluation performed by a radiologist)
Tidsramme: Baseline observations (Objective 1)
|
Full thickness rotator cuff tears will be classified by size defined as small (<10 mm), medium (10 to 30 mm) or large (>30 mm)
|
Baseline observations (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Acromiohumeral distance from baseline
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Ultrasound (US scanner) will be used to measure the acromiohumeral distance of the affected shoulder at 0 degrees and 60 degrees of shoulder abduction
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Acromiohumeral distance from baseline
Tidsramme: Baseline distance (Objective 1)
|
Ultrasound (US scanner) will be used to measure the acromiohumeral distance of the affected shoulder at 0 degrees and 60 degrees of shoulder abduction
|
Baseline distance (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Radiographical evaluation of the shoulder from baseline
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Presence or absence of calcific tendonitis and/or osteophytes at the glenohumeral and acromioclavicular joints
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Radiographical evaluation of the shoulder from baseline
Tidsramme: Baseline observation (Objective 1)
|
Presence or absence of calcific tendonitis and/or osteophytes at the glenohumeral and acromioclavicular joints
|
Baseline observation (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in pain sensitivity from baseline: Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT)
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
PPT will be assessed bilaterally at the middle deltoid and tibialis anterior muscles using a mechanical pressure algometer at an applied rate of 1 kg/s.
The amount of pressure at which pain is perceived (in Newtons) will be recorded (mean of 3 trials).
Higher scores denote less pain sensitivity.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Pain sensitivity from baseline: Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT)
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
PPT will be assessed bilaterally at the middle deltoid and tibialis anterior muscles using a mechanical pressure algometer at an applied rate of 1 kg/s.
The amount of pressure at which pain is perceived (in Newtons) will be recorded (mean of 3 trials).
Higher scores denote less pain sensitivity.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Range of Motion (ROM) of the affected shoulder from baseline
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Shoulder ROM in flexion, lateral rotation at 0° abduction, and lateral and medial rotation at 90° abduction will be measured using a goniometer (flexion) and an inclinometer (other measures).
Values will be compared to normative data according to age.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Range of Motion (ROM) of the affected shoulder from baseline
Tidsramme: Baseline ROM (Objective 1)
|
Shoulder ROM in flexion, lateral rotation at 0° abduction, and lateral and medial rotation at 90° abduction will be measured using a goniometer (flexion) and an inclinometer (other measures).
Values will be compared to normative data according to age.
|
Baseline ROM (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Bilateral grip strength with handheld dynamometer from baseline
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Measured in pounds.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Bilateral grip strength with handheld dynamometer from baseline
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Measured in pounds.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in Isometric shoulder strength from baseline, with manual dynamometer
Tidsramme: BFrom baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Isometric shoulder strength in abduction and in lateral rotation at 0° abduction will be measured in Newtons with a manual dynamometer (MedUp), and normalized by lever arm, measured in meters using a measuring tape.
|
BFrom baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Isometric shoulder strength from baseline, with manual dynamometer
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Isometric shoulder strength in abduction and in lateral rotation at 0° abduction will be measured in Newtons with a manual dynamometer (MedUp), and normalized by lever arm, measured in meters using a measuring tape.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change in scapular dyskinesis from baseline: Scapula Dyskinesis Test
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Bilateral scapular dyskinesis measured on a 3-point scale: normal (0 points), subtle (1 point), obvious (2 points).
Higher scores indicate greater dyskinesis.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Scapular dyskinesis from baseline: Scapula Dyskinesis Test
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Bilateral scapular dyskinesis measured on a 3-point scale: normal (0 points), subtle (1 point), obvious (2 points).
Higher scores indicate greater dyskinesis.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
|
Change from baseline in Shoulder proprioception (arm position matching), coordination and functional dominance with the KINARM exoskeleton (BKIN Technologies)
Tidsramme: From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
Three KINARM standard tasks will be used to evaluate bilateral upper extremity neuromuscular control.
Units of measurement: error in cm and task score (arm position matching task), and task score for the coordination and functional dominance tasks.
Task scores are calculated by KINARM software according to variables such as precision and speed.
|
From baseline to the follow-up evaluation (end of the 2-year period)(Objective 2 and 3)
|
|
Shoulder proprioception (arm position matching), coordination and functional dominance with the KINARM exoskeleton (BKIN Technologies)
Tidsramme: Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Three KINARM standard tasks will be used to evaluate bilateral upper extremity neuromuscular control.
Units of measurement: error in cm and task score (arm position matching task), and task score for the coordination and functional dominance tasks.
Task scores are calculated by KINARM software according to variables such as precision and speed.
|
Baseline score (Objective 1)
|
Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere
Sponsor
Efterforskere
- Ledende efterforsker: Jean-Sebastien Roy, PT, PhD, Laval University
Datoer for undersøgelser
Studer store datoer
Studiestart (Faktiske)
Primær færdiggørelse (Forventet)
Studieafslutning (Forventet)
Datoer for studieregistrering
Først indsendt
Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier
Først opslået (Faktiske)
Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler
Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)
Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier
Sidst verificeret
Mere information
Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse
Yderligere relevante MeSH-vilkår
Andre undersøgelses-id-numre
- ShoulderPain2018
Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt
Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .
Kliniske forsøg med Fuld tykkelse Rotator Cuff Rivning
-
Zimmer, GmbHAfsluttetCuff-tear artropatiTyskland, Belgien, Schweiz, Det Forenede Kongerige
-
Vienna Hospital AssociationIkke rekrutterer endnuRotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy | Manchetrivningsartropati | OmartroseØstrig
-
University of Southern DenmarkTilmelding efter invitationRotator Cuff Skader | Rotator Cuff River | Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyDanmark
-
Consorci Sanitari de TerrassaAfsluttetRotator Cuff River | Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathySpanien
-
William Beaumont HospitalsAfsluttetRotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyForenede Stater
-
Rush University Medical CenterOrthopedic Research and Education FoundationAfsluttetSkuldergigt | Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyForenede Stater
-
University of California, San FranciscoAfsluttetRotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyForenede Stater
-
Lovisenberg Diakonale HospitalSykehuset Telemark; South-Eastern Norway Regional Health AuthorityRekrutteringRotator Cuff Skader | Rotator Cuff River | Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyNorge
-
Henry Ford Health SystemSmith & Nephew, Inc.RekrutteringRotator Cuff River | Rotator Cuff Tear ArthropathyForenede Stater
-
Samsung Medical CenterRekrutteringRotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy | Reparation af en manchetrivningSydkorea