Outcomes of the Star Repair for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Modified Triple-Row Technique

A Modified Arthroscopic Triple-row Repair Technique for L-shaped Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of a modified arthroscopic triple-row (TR) repair technique with the suture bridge (SB) repair technique in treating L-shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears. Various surgical techniques for L-shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears have been reported, many of which aid in increasing the contact area and pressure of the rotator cuff. However, there is still debate over which technique yields superior results.

METHODS

From January 2017 to March 2020, 61 cases of L-shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears were included in this study. Of these, 34 cases underwent the modified arthroscopic triple-row repair technique, while 27 cases were addressed with the suture bridge repair technique. Functional assessment was conducted using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, the Constant score (CS), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) assessments for rotator cuff healing were performed at the 24-month postoperative mark. Statistical evaluations were conducted using SPSS for Windows (Version 25.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), employing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare preoperative and postoperative data and ROM differences, and the Mann-Whitney U test for statistical differences in clinical outcome scores between the two groups. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Comparative analysis of the preoperative and final follow-up scores revealed a substantial enhancement in shoulder function, as indicated by the ASES, UCLA, CS, and VAS scores, with statistical significance (p < 0.001). At both the preoperative stage and final follow-up, no notable differences were observed in ASES, UCLA, CS, and VAS scores between the two groups. However, the TR repair group exhibited lower VAS scores than the SB group at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Active range of motion (ROM) showed significant improvement in both groups. No significant differences in ROM were noted between the two groups either before the surgery or at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that both the modified arthroscopic TR and SB techniques for L-shaped delaminated cuff tears yield satisfactory outcomes, with no significant differences in overall clinical performance. Notably, early postoperative pain management appears more effective with the modified TR technique, suggesting its potential for enhanced early recovery experiences. This technique's design, promoting securer fixation and optimal contact conditions, is implied to facilitate superior long-term healing, warranting further investigation into its long-term benefits.

Comparison of clinical outcome and repair integrity after arthroscopic suture-bridge and triple-row rotator cuff repairs of Fosbury flop tears

BACKGROUND

The Fosbury flop tear (FFT) has recently been described as a rotator cuff tear that has flipped upon itself and adhered medially. FFT is known to have a high retear rate after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The cause of the high postoperative retear rate after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is believed to be due to the inability to achieve anatomical reduction because of difficulties in reducing the torn tendon stump. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs using the triple-row technique may allow better anatomical reduction of the cuff tear when compared with the suture-bridge technique. We compared the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity of the triple-row and suture-bridge techniques in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for FFT.

METHODS

Patients with small-to-medium sized cuff tears of the supraspinatus tendon alone who were diagnosed with FFT, underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, and had 2 or more years of follow-up were included. A total of 34 shoulders underwent the triple-row technique and 22 shoulders underwent the suture-bridge technique. The following were compared between the two techniques: patient background, operation time, number of anchors used during the operation, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, active range of motion, and retear rate.

RESULTS

No significant difference in patient background was found between the two techniques. Although active range of motion was significantly improved compared with preoperative scores, no significant difference was observed between techniques. The triple-row technique demonstrated a significantly higher 24-month postoperative JOA score, significantly shorter surgery time, significantly lower retear rate, and significantly larger number of anchors used during the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The triple-row technique was an effective method compared with the suture-bridge technique in cases with FFT.

Comparison of Outcomes between Open and Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Objective

The objective of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of two surgical techniques for rotator cuff repair, namely, open and arthroscopic methods.

Methods

A total of 100 patients diagnosed with rotator cuff tears and treated at Seyhan State Hospital in the past five years were enrolled, considering the same inclusion criteria for both groups. The study groups consisted of 50 patients who underwent open rotator cuff repair and 50 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We used the SPSS programme to analyse the data, focusing on parameters such as postoperative recovery time, functional capacity scores, pain levels measured by the VAS scale, quality of life evaluated by the SF-36 scores, and complication rates.

Results

Both methods resulted in similar recovery times and functional capacity scores, but patients treated with the open method reported slightly lower pain levels (average VAS score: 2.8) compared to those treated with the arthroscopic method (average VAS score: 3.1). The study also found slightly better quality of life scores in the arthroscopic group (average SF-36 score: 71.4) compared to the open surgery group (average SF-36 score: 68.7). The complications rates were lower in the arthroscopic group (2%) than in the open surgery group (4%), but these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The study suggests that, while there are no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes between the two surgical methods, short-term pain levels may be influenced by the more frequent application of acromioplasty in arthroscopic methods. Therefore, the choice of the surgical method should be made based on the unique characteristics, including the location and size, the patient's overall health status, and the surgeon's experience. These findings should be used as a guide and not as absolute results.

Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation be used as a stand-alone subjective outcome instrument in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair?

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS

There is no consensus to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. The Single Assessment Numeric (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis was that SANE will correlate with and be comparable in responsiveness to other subjective outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC], and the Simple Shoulder Test [SST]). In addition, the SANE will be more relevant to each patient compared to the ASES, further supporting its use as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair was reviewed where the SANE was recorded with the ASES, WORC, and/or SST. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if correlations differed in (1) preoperative and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean (SRM) and the effect size (ES) of all scores. Relevance and precision of the SANE and ASES were examined using 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions in each score that were not answered.

RESULTS

Correlation was excellent for the SANE and the ASES (n = 1838, r = 0.81, P < .0001), the WORC (n = 1793, r = 0.82, P < .0001), and the SST (n = 1836, r = 0.76, P < .0001). Correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and postoperative scores were excellent when comparing the SANE with all 3 scores. All scores were highly responsive, with the SRM of the SANE = 2.1, ASES = 2.2, WORC = 2.4, and the SST = 1.8. The ES of the SANE = 2.4, ASES = 2.7, WORC = 3.0, and the SST = 2.1. One hundred percent of the SANE scores were answered completely compared with 57% (P < .0001) of the ASES, with significant variability found in the answers to the "work" and "score" questions.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing rotator cuff repair, the SANE highly correlated and has equivalent responsiveness with the WORC, ASES, and SST, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measures. The SANE may provide the same information as the WORC, ASES, and SST regarding outcome with significant reduction in responder burden. This study supports that the SANE can be used as a subjective, stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

Clinical outcome and repair integrity after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Triple-row versus suture-bridge techniques

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity of the triple-row technique and suture-bridge technique in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

Among patients with more than two years of follow-up (mean 27.4 ± 7.2 months), 71 shoulders that underwent the triple-row technique (46 male and 25 female; mean age, 62.7 ± 10.1 years; small-to-medium tears, 42 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 29 shoulders) and 64 shoulders that underwent the suture-bridge technique (43 male and 21 female; mean age, 65.5 ± 8.4 years; small-to-medium tears, 46 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 18 shoulders) were examined. The patient background, operation time, number of anchors used during the operation, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Active range of motion, and retear rate were evaluated and compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the patient background between the two techniques. The JOA score and Active range of motion were significantly improved compared to preoperative scores; however, there were no difference between the two techniques. The number of anchors used during the operation was 5.4 ± 1.6 for the triple-row technique and 4.1 ± 1.9 for the suture-bridge technique. Although significantly more anchors were used for the triple-row technique, there was no significant difference in the operation time between the two techniques. The retear rate was 7.1% for small-to-medium tears and 3.4% for large-to-massive tears using the triple-row technique, and 10.9% for small-to-medium tears and 33.3% for large-to-massive tears using the suture-bridge technique. The retear rate was significantly lower in large-to-massive tears when using the triple-row technique.

CONCLUSION

The triple-row technique was an effective method compared to the suture-bridge technique in cases with large-to-massive tears.