Background The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the clinical and structural findings following the arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness (exceeding 50%) articular-sided rotator cuff tears using either a… Click to show full abstract
Background The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the clinical and structural findings following the arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness (exceeding 50%) articular-sided rotator cuff tears using either a single-row or a double-row suture bridge fixation. Materials and methods Fifty patients were included in this study. The patients were randomly placed into two groups: 25 underwent the single-row (Group I) and 25 a double-row suture bridge fixation (Group II). The clinical outcomes were assessed using ASES and Constant shoulder scores, both preoperatively and at the end of follow-up. The pain level was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), preoperatively, at 6 months and at the end of follow-up. All patients underwent preoperative MRI to identify the rotator cuff tear, and postoperatively at 12 months to evaluate tendon integrity. Results The average follow-up was 32.5 months. The mean ASES scores increased from 35.9 to 96.7 in Group I and from 35.3 to 93.4 in Group II; the mean Constant shoulder scores increased from 55.6 to 97.8 in Group I and from 57.5 to 97.3 in Group II. There were no significant differences between the two groups. The average preoperative pain level decreased from 7.4 to 3 at 6 months and to 0.4 at the end of the Group I; and from 7.6 to 3 at 6 months and 0.8 in Group II. There was no significant difference between the two groups. At 12 months, the MRI assessments showed two retears in Group I (8%) and one retear in Group II (4%). Conclusion Arthroscopic repair of partial-thickness articular rotator cuff tears that exceed 50% of tendon thickness with a single-row transtendon repair or double-row suture bridge provides functional improvement and pain relief regardless of the repair technique used. There were no differences in clinical results between both techniques. Level of evidence Level II; prospective comparative study.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.