Bridging Allograft Reconstruction Is Superior to Maximal Repair for the Treatment of Chronic, Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: Results of a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Despite advances in surgical techniques, the use of maximal repair to treat large or massive rotator cuff tears results in a high retear rate postoperatively. Currently, no randomized controlled trials have compared the outcomes of maximal repair with interposition dermal allograft bridging reconstruction. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that large or massive rotator cuff tendon tears reconstructed using bridging dermal allograft would have better clinical outcomes 2 years postoperatively, as measured using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, than would those receiving the current gold standard treatment of debridement and maximal repair alone. We also expected that patients treated via bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft would have fewer postoperative failures as assessed using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence 1. Methods: A sample size of 30 patients (determined using a priori sample size calculation) with massive, retracted rotator cuff tears were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: maximal repair or bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft. All patients completed questionnaires (WORC and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH]) preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The primary outcome of this study was the WORC index at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included healing rate, progression of rotator cuff arthropathy, and postoperative acromiohumeral distance in both groups. Results: Patients treated via bridging reconstruction using dermal allograft had better postoperative WORC and DASH scores (23.93 ± 24.55 and 15.77 ± 19.27, respectively) compared with patients who received maximal repair alone (53.36 ± 31.93 and 34.32 ± 23.31, respectively). We also noted increased progression to rotator cuff arthropathy in the maximal repair group with an increased retear rate when compared with the reconstruction group (87% and 21%, respectively; P < .001). The acromiohumeral distance was maintained in the reconstruction group but significantly decreased in the maximal repair group. Conclusion: Rotator cuff bridging reconstruction using a dermal allograft demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes as measured using the WORC index 2 years postoperatively. This technique also showed favorable structural healing rates and decreased progression to arthropathy compared with maximal repair. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01987973)

Clinical Outcomes of Interposition Graft Versus Superior Capsular Reconstruction in Patients With Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Interposition grafting (IG), also called bridging grafting, and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are the most commonly used joint-preserving surgical methods for irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs). Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of IG versus SCR to treat patients with irreparable RCTs. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Included in this review were clinical studies evaluating the effect of IG or SCR in patients with irreparable RCTs with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Various clinical results from the studies were extracted and compared between IG and SCR, and among them, the results of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, graft retear rate, and complication rate were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Of 1638 identified articles, 17 (10 studies of IG involving 321 patients and 7 studies of SCR involving 357 patients) were selected. Both surgical methods showed significantly improved clinical outcomes in all but 1 study; however, the IG group had lower pain visual analog scale score, higher Constant score, and bigger active forward flexion and internal rotation compared with the SCR group (all P < .001). The meta-analysis showed no difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score between groups ( P = .44), but showed a significantly lower complication rate in the IG group compared with the SCR group (1.12% vs 8.37%, respectively; P < .001). The graft retear rate was not significantly different between groups (IG = 10.64% vs SCR = 12.67%; P = .79). The meta-analysis of graft type indicated no difference between groups in retear rate (autograft: 95% CI, 0.045-0.601; I2 = 93.28 [IG], 91.27 [SCR]; P = .22; allograft: 95% CI, 0.041-0.216; I2 = 80.39 [IG], 69.12 [SCR]; P = .64) or complication rate (autograft: 95% CI, 0.009-0.150; I2 = 0 [IG], 65.89 [SCR]; P = .25; allograft: 95% CI, 0.012-0.081; I2 = 0 [IG], 30.62 [SCR]; P = .09). Conclusion: Both IG and SCR techniques resulted in improvement in patients with irreparable RCTs. Meta-analysis showed a lower complication rate in the IG group; however, the lack of randomized studies limited our conclusions.

Conservative versus accelerated rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the conservative and accelerated rehabilitation protocols in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in terms of clinical outcomes and range of motions at 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up. Methods According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed. For each included article, the following data has been extracted: authors, year, study design, level of evidence, demographic characteristics, follow-up, clinical outcomes, range of motions, and retear events. A meta-analysis was performed to compare accelerated versus conservative rehabilitation protocols after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The retear rate, postoperative Constant-Murley score and range of motions at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up were the outcomes measured. Results The search strategy yielded 16 level I-II clinical studies. A total of 1424 patients, with 732 patients and 692 in the accelerated and conservative group, were included. The average age (mean ± standard deviation) was 56.1 ± 8.7 and 56.6 ± 9 in the accelerated and conservative group. The mean follow-up was 12.5 months, ranging from 2 to 24 months. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in terms of retear rate between the groups (P = 0.29). The superiority of the accelerated group was demonstrated in terms of external rotation (P < 0.05) at 3-month follow-up; in terms of forward elevation, external rotation, abduction (P < 0.05), but not in terms of Constant-Murley score at 6-month follow-up; in terms of forward elevation (P < 0.05) at 12-month follow-up. No significant differences between the two group were highlighted at 24-month follow-up. Conclusions No statistically significant differences in the retear rate among the accelerated and conservative group have been demonstrated. On the other hand, statistically and clinically significant differences were found in terms of external rotation at 3 and 6 months of follow-up in favour of the accelerated group. However, no differences between the two groups were detected at 24 months follow-up.

Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: It is unclear how and which factors affect the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) applied during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of PRP for arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tear and investigate the factors that affect its clinical efficacy. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and OVID to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients who received PRP treatment and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (PRP group) versus controls (no-PRP group). The primary outcomes included retear rate, Constant-Murley score, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, short-term American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and adverse events. Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Significant improvement in Constant-Murley, UCLA, and VAS pain scores were found in the PRP group during short-term, midterm, and long-term follow-up. The PRP group had a significantly decreased retear rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.78]; P = .0003), especially for long-term follow-up (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.83]; P = .02), large to massive tears (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.80]; P = .0008), use of leukocyte-poor PRP (RR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.76]; P = .001), and intraoperative application of PRP (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79]; P = .0007). No significant difference between the 2 groups was found in the incidence of adverse events (RR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.15]; P = .23) or in ASES scores at short-term follow-up (weighted mean difference, 1.04 [95% CI, –3.10 to 5.19]; P = .62). Conclusion: The results of this review indicated that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with PRP significantly reduced the long-term retear rate and shoulder pain and provided improved long-term shoulder function in patients. Intraoperative application of PRP, use of leukocyte-poor plasma, and large to massive tear size contributed to a significantly decreased retear rate for rotator cuff repair combined with PRP.

Revision Rotator Cuff Repair Versus Primary Repair for Large to Massive Tears Involving the Posterosuperior Cuff: Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

Background: The retear rate after revision rotator cuff repair (rRCR) ranges from 50% to 90%. Patients who undergo primary RCR (pRCR) for large to massive rotator cuff tear (mRCT) also have unpredictable outcomes. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes after rRCR for a posterosuperior rotator cuff tear of any size with those after pRCR for mRCT and to identify the risk factors for poor outcomes and retear after rRCR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Among patients with posterosuperior cuff tear treated between 2010 and 2017, the clinical outcomes of 46 patients who underwent rRCR were compared with 106 patients who underwent pRCR for mRCT. Between-group differences in patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, VAS for satisfaction and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] and Constant scores) at final follow-up were evaluated and compared with previously published minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography at a minimum 1-year follow-up. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for poor ASES score, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the risk factors for retear after rRCR. Results: The mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range, 24-81 months). Although final VAS for pain, VAS for satisfaction, and ASES scores in the rRCR group were significantly worse than those in the pRCR group, the Constant score was similar between the groups. These differences in outcomes did not exceed the MCID threshold. The retear rate in the rRCR group was 50% compared with 39% for the pRCR group ( P = .194). In the rRCR group, risk factors for worse ASES score were retear ( P = .043; r = –11.3), lower body mass index ( P = .032; r = 1.9), and lower preoperative VAS for pain ( P = .038; r = 2.3), and risk factors for retear were preoperative high-grade fatty degeneration (Goutallier grades 3 and 4) of the supraspinatus muscle ( P = .026; odds ratio, 5.2) and serum hyperlipidemia ( P = .035; odds ratio, 11.8). Conclusion: Both study groups had similar clinical and radiological outcomes. Patients with symptomatic failed rotator cuff repairs having high-grade fatty degeneration of the supraspinatus muscle and/or serum hyperlipidemia had a greater likelihood of retear after rRCR.