Arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness articular surface rotator cuff tears: single-row transtendon technique versus double-row suture bridge (transosseous equivalent) fixation: results from a prospective randomized study

Background: When arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is performed on a young patient, long-lasting structural and functional tendon integrity is desired. A fixation technique that potentially provides superior tendon healing should be considered for the younger population to achieve long-term clinical success. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to compare the radiological and clinical midterm results between single-row and double-row (ie, suture bridge) fixation techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients younger than 55 years. We hypothesized that a double-row technique would lead to improved tendon healing, resulting in superior mid- to long-term clinical outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A consecutive series of 66 patients younger than 55 years with a medium to large full-thickness tear of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons who underwent arthroscopic single-row or double-row (ie, suture bridge) repair were enrolled and prospectively observed. Thirty-four and 32 patients were assigned to single-row and double-row groups, respectively. Postoperatively, tendon integrity was assessed by MRI following Sugaya’s classification at a minimum of 12 months, and clinical outcomes were assessed with the Constant score and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score at a minimum of 2 years. Results: Mean follow-up time was 46 months (range, 28-50 months). A higher tendon healing rate was obtained in the double-row group compared with the single-row group (84% and 61%, respectively [ P < .05]). Although no difference in outcome scores was observed between the 2 techniques, patients with healed tendon demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared with patients who had retorn tendon (UCLA score, 34.2 and 27.6, respectively [ P < .05]; Constant score, 94 and 76, respectively [ P < .05]). Conclusion: The double-row repair technique potentially provides superior tendon healing compared with the single-row technique. Double-row repair should be considered for patients younger than 55 years with medium to large rotator cuff tears.

Download Full-text

Arthroscopic Repair of Articular Surface Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: Transtendon Technique versus Repair after Completion of the Tear—A Meta-Analysis

Advances in Orthopedics ◽

10.1155/2016/7468054 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Yohei Ono ◽

Jarret M. Woodmass ◽

Aaron J. Bois ◽

Richard S. Boorman ◽

Gail M. Thornton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rotator Cuff ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Articular Surface ◽

Constant Score ◽

Surgical Techniques ◽

Arthroscopic Repair ◽

Rotator Cuff Tears ◽

Long Term Outcome ◽

Partial Thickness ◽

Significant Difference

Articular surface partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs) are commonly repaired using two different surgical techniques: transtendon repair or repair after completion of the tear. Although a number of studies have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, it is unclear which technique may provide superior clinical outcomes and tendon healing. The purpose was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes following arthroscopic repair of articular surface PTRCT using a transtendon technique or completion of the tear. A systematic review of the literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines and checklist. The objective outcome measures evaluated in this study were the Constant Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analogue Scale, physical examination, and complications. Three studies met our criteria. All were prospective randomized comparative studies with level II evidence and published from 2012 to 2013. A total of 182 shoulders (mean age 53.7 years; mean follow-up 40.5 months) were analyzed as part of this study. Both procedures provided excellent clinical outcomes with no significant difference in Constant Score and other measures between the procedures. Both procedures demonstrated improved clinical outcomes. However, there were no significant differences between each technique. Further studies are required to determine the long-term outcome of each technique.

Download Full-text