Yang-Soo Kim1, Hyo-Jin Lee1, Sung-Ho Bae1, Hyonki Jin1, Hyun Seok Song2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shoulder and Elbow Study Group, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shoulder and Elbow Study Group, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: hssongmd@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic in situ repair with the tear completion repair technique for partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PT-RCTs). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 100 cases with articular-sided and bursal-sided PT-RCTs exceeding 50% of tendon thickness and allocated them randomly. An in situ repair was performed in group 1 (n = 50). Completion of the remaining cuff tissue and repair were performed in group 2 (n = 50). The medial row was knotted as transosseous repair (suture-bridge technique) in all cases. American Shoulder Elbow Society (ASES) score, Constant shoulder (CS) score, Simple shoulder (SS) score, and Korean shoulder (KS) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and range of motion were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months and at the last visit. Repaired tendon integrity was determined at 6 to 12 months by magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Eight cases were lost to follow-up. Ultimately, 92 cases were analyzed. The average follow-up was 19.1 months (range, 12 to 42 months). Significant improvements in the VAS for pain and functional outcomes were observed in both groups postoperatively (P = .001 for VAS; P < .001 for ASES score; P < .001 for CS score; P = .001 for SS score; P<.001 for KS score). No significant difference in the clinical results was observed at any time between the groups. No difference of retear rate on articular-sided PT-RCT was observed between the groups (P = .34). Retears on the bursal-sided PT-RCT were more frequent in group 2 (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Arthroscopic repair of PT-RCT exceeding 50% of the thickness provided functional improvements and pain relief regardless of the repair technique. The retear rate for bursal-sided PT-RCT was higher in group 2, although the retear rate for the articular-sided PT-RCT was not different. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic in situ repair with the tear completion repair technique for partial-thickness rotator cuff tears (PT-RCTs). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 100 cases with articular-sided and bursal-sided PT-RCTs exceeding 50% of tendon thickness and allocated them randomly. An in situ repair was performed in group 1 (n = 50). Completion of the remaining cuff tissue and repair were performed in group 2 (n = 50). The medial row was knotted as transosseous repair (suture-bridge technique) in all cases. American Shoulder Elbow Society (ASES) score, Constant shoulder (CS) score, Simple shoulder (SS) score, and Korean shoulder (KS) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and range of motion were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months and at the last visit. Repaired tendon integrity was determined at 6 to 12 months by magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Eight cases were lost to follow-up. Ultimately, 92 cases were analyzed. The average follow-up was 19.1 months (range, 12 to 42 months). Significant improvements in the VAS for pain and functional outcomes were observed in both groups postoperatively (P = .001 for VAS; P < .001 for ASES score; P < .001 for CS score; P = .001 for SS score; P<.001 for KS score). No significant difference in the clinical results was observed at any time between the groups. No difference of retear rate on articular-sided PT-RCT was observed between the groups (P = .34). Retears on the bursal-sided PT-RCT were more frequent in group 2 (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of PT-RCT exceeding 50% of the thickness provided functional improvements and pain relief regardless of the repair technique. The retear rate for bursal-sided PT-RCT was higher in group 2, although the retear rate for the articular-sided PT-RCT was not different. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.