Kyung Cheon Kim1, Hyun Dae Shin, Soo Min Cha, Jun Yeong Park. 1. Kyung Cheon Kim, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 640 Daesa-Dong, Jung-Gu, Daejeon 301-040, South Korea. kckim@cnu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have reported an unusual retear pattern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair based on the repair method. PURPOSE: To compare the retear pattern of the arthroscopic single-row technique (SRT), conventional suture-bridge technique (SBT), and knotless suture-bridge technique (K-SBT) for rotator cuff tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study evaluated 65 shoulders with retears revealed on magnetic resonance imaging at least 6 months after arthroscopic repair for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear. A retear was revealed in 21, 22, and 22 shoulders after the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT, respectively. Retears were classified as type 1 (unhealed tendons), type 2 (medially ruptured tendons with a healed footprint), or type 3 (unable to classify). Retear patterns were classified as full- or partial-thickness lesions; partial-thickness retears were further classified as articular- or bursal-side lesions. RESULTS: A type 1 retear was observed in 71.4%, 40.9%, and 54.5% and a type 2 retear in 23.8%, 59.0%, and 40.9% of patients in the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed among the 3 groups together (P = .195); however, a significant difference was observed between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .049). No significant differences were observed for either type 1 (P = .121) or type 2 (including both full- and partial-thickness) retears (P = .064) among the 3 groups together. When respective pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference was noted in both type 1 (P = .044) and type 2 retears (P = .019) between the SRT and SBT groups alone. No significant differences were observed in type 1 (P = .281) or type 2 full-thickness retears (P = .117) among the 3 groups together. When pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference in type 2 full-thickness retears was detected between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .037). CONCLUSION: The SBT has a different retear pattern than that of the SRT. However, the K-SBT retear pattern was not different from that of the SRT.
BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have reported an unusual retear pattern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair based on the repair method. PURPOSE: To compare the retear pattern of the arthroscopic single-row technique (SRT), conventional suture-bridge technique (SBT), and knotless suture-bridge technique (K-SBT) for rotator cuff tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study evaluated 65 shoulders with retears revealed on magnetic resonance imaging at least 6 months after arthroscopic repair for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear. A retear was revealed in 21, 22, and 22 shoulders after the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT, respectively. Retears were classified as type 1 (unhealed tendons), type 2 (medially ruptured tendons with a healed footprint), or type 3 (unable to classify). Retear patterns were classified as full- or partial-thickness lesions; partial-thickness retears were further classified as articular- or bursal-side lesions. RESULTS: A type 1 retear was observed in 71.4%, 40.9%, and 54.5% and a type 2 retear in 23.8%, 59.0%, and 40.9% of patients in the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed among the 3 groups together (P = .195); however, a significant difference was observed between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .049). No significant differences were observed for either type 1 (P = .121) or type 2 (including both full- and partial-thickness) retears (P = .064) among the 3 groups together. When respective pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference was noted in both type 1 (P = .044) and type 2 retears (P = .019) between the SRT and SBT groups alone. No significant differences were observed in type 1 (P = .281) or type 2 full-thickness retears (P = .117) among the 3 groups together. When pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference in type 2 full-thickness retears was detected between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .037). CONCLUSION: The SBT has a different retear pattern than that of the SRT. However, the K-SBT retear pattern was not different from that of the SRT.
Authors: Taku Hatta; Hugo Giambini; Alexander W Hooke; Chunfeng Zhao; John W Sperling; Scott P Steinmann; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Eiji Itoi; Kai-Nan An Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Carlos Maia Dias; Sérgio B Gonçalves; António Completo; Manuel Ribeiro da Silva; Clara de Campos Azevedo; Jorge Mineiro; Frederico Ferreira; João Folgado Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-09-19
Authors: Ameer M Elbuluk; Francesca R Coxe; Peter D Fabricant; Nicholas L Ramos; Michael J Alaia; Kristofer J Jones Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-05-16
Authors: Carlos Maia Dias; Sérgio B Gonçalves; António Completo; Martina Tognini; Manuel Ribeiro da Silva; Jorge Mineiro; Francisco Curate; Frederico Ferreira; João Folgado Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2021-02-03