PURPOSE: To compare the results of arthroscopic repair of large to massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) with or without augmentation using an extracellular matrix (ECM) graft and to present ECM graft augmentation as a valuable surgical alternative used for biomechanical reinforcement in any RCT repair. METHODS: We performed a prospective, blinded, single-center, comparative study of patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a large to massive RCT with or without augmentation with ECM graft. The primary outcome was assessed by the presence or absence of a retear of the previously repaired rotator cuff, as noted on ultrasound examination. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder outcome score, a visual analog scale score, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, and a shoulder activity level survey. RESULTS: We enrolled 35 patients in the study: 20 in the ECM-augmented rotator cuff repair group and 15 in the control group. The follow-up period ranged from 22 to 26 months, with a mean of 24.9 months. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the incidence of retears: 26% (4 retears) in the control group and 10% (2 retears) in the ECM graft group (P = .0483). The mean pain level decreased from 6.9 to 4.1 in the control group and from 6.8 to 0.9 in the ECM graft group (P = .024). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 62.1 to 72.6 points in the control group and from 63.8 to 88.9 points (P = .02) in the treatment group. The mean Short Form 12 scores improved in the 2 groups, with a statistically significant difference favoring graft augmentation (P = .031), and correspondingly, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index scores improved in both arms, favoring the treatment group (P = .0412). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECM for augmentation of arthroscopic repairs of large to massive RCTs reduces the incidence of retears, improves patient outcome scores, and is a viable option during complicated cases in which a significant failure rate is anticipated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective, blinded, nonrandomized, comparative study.
PURPOSE: To compare the results of arthroscopic repair of large to massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) with or without augmentation using an extracellular matrix (ECM) graft and to present ECM graft augmentation as a valuable surgical alternative used for biomechanical reinforcement in any RCT repair. METHODS: We performed a prospective, blinded, single-center, comparative study of patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a large to massive RCT with or without augmentation with ECM graft. The primary outcome was assessed by the presence or absence of a retear of the previously repaired rotator cuff, as noted on ultrasound examination. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder outcome score, a visual analog scale score, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, and a shoulder activity level survey. RESULTS: We enrolled 35 patients in the study: 20 in the ECM-augmented rotator cuff repair group and 15 in the control group. The follow-up period ranged from 22 to 26 months, with a mean of 24.9 months. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the incidence of retears: 26% (4 retears) in the control group and 10% (2 retears) in the ECM graft group (P = .0483). The mean pain level decreased from 6.9 to 4.1 in the control group and from 6.8 to 0.9 in the ECM graft group (P = .024). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 62.1 to 72.6 points in the control group and from 63.8 to 88.9 points (P = .02) in the treatment group. The mean Short Form 12 scores improved in the 2 groups, with a statistically significant difference favoring graft augmentation (P = .031), and correspondingly, the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index scores improved in both arms, favoring the treatment group (P = .0412). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECM for augmentation of arthroscopic repairs of large to massive RCTs reduces the incidence of retears, improves patient outcome scores, and is a viable option during complicated cases in which a significant failure rate is anticipated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective, blinded, nonrandomized, comparative study.
Authors: Jonathan A Cook; Mathew Baldwin; Cushla Cooper; Navraj S Nagra; Joanna C Crocker; Molly Glaze; Gemma Greenall; Amar Rangan; Lucksy Kottam; Jonathan L Rees; Dair Farrar-Hockley; Naomi Merritt; Sally Hopewell; David Beard; Michael Thomas; Melina Dritsaki; Andrew J Carr Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Daniel P Berthold; Patrick Garvin; Michael R Mancini; Colin L Uyeki; Matthew R LeVasseur; Augustus D Mazzocca; Andreas Voss Journal: Oper Orthop Traumatol Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 1.154
Authors: Simon M Johnson; Jennifer V Cherry; Naveena Thomas; Mansoor Jafri; Arpit Jariwala; Gordon G McLeod Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2019-09-06
Authors: Yohei Ono; Diego Alejandro Dávalos Herrera; Jarret M Woodmass; Richard S Boorman; Gail M Thornton; Ian K Y Lo Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2016-12-15