Jeffrey Yang1, Matthew Robbins2, Jordan Reilly2, Tristan Maerz2,3, Kyle Anderson1,3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA. 2. Orthopaedic Research Laboratories, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, William Beaumont School of Medicine, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical effect of a retear after rotator cuff repair remains unclear. While some studies have indicated clinical deficits due to a retear, others have stated that a retear does not detrimentally affect outcomes. PURPOSE: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between intact and retorn rotator cuffs after arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search using the terms "arthroscopic," "rotator cuff," "repair," "retear," "re-tear," "defect," "single-row," "double-row," "clinical outcomes," and "functional outcomes" was conducted. Article inclusion criteria were an adequate description of the surgical technique, stratification of outcomes by intact rotator cuff versus retear with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, and documentation of the presence/absence of a full-thickness retear using imaging. Exclusion criteria were isolated subscapularis tears/repairs, labral repairs, infections, postoperative fractures, insufficient data or statistical indications, and postoperative data not stratified by retear versus intact rotator cuff. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on variables that had comparisons from at least 3 studies. Single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) studies were analyzed both separately and together in an "all arthroscopic repairs" (AAR) comparison. The calculated effect was considered significant at a P value <.05. RESULTS: Within the SR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -6.79 [-8.94 to -4.65]; P < .001) and lower University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score (-3.21 [-5.27 to -1.15]; P = .002) but not higher pain (0.071 [-0.34 to 0.49]; P = .739). Within the DR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -9.35 [-12.2 to -6.50]; P < .001), lower American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (-12.1 [-17.1 to -7.26]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.07 [-4.85 to -1.29]; P < .001), higher pain (0.622 [0.19 to 1.05]; P = .005), and lower abduction strength ( P < .001). In the AAR comparison, patients with a retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -7.56 [-9.55 to -5.57]; P < .001), lower ASES score (-10.1 [-15.5 to -4.64]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.00 [-4.47 to -1.53]; P < .001), and lower abduction strength (in kg·f) (-3.32 [-4.53 to -2.12]; P < .001) but not higher pain (0.332 [-0.014 to 0.680]; P = .060). CONCLUSION: Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff retear exhibited significantly lower clinical outcome scores and strength compared with patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff.
BACKGROUND: The clinical effect of a retear after rotator cuff repair remains unclear. While some studies have indicated clinical deficits due to a retear, others have stated that a retear does not detrimentally affect outcomes. PURPOSE: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between intact and retorn rotator cuffs after arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search using the terms "arthroscopic," "rotator cuff," "repair," "retear," "re-tear," "defect," "single-row," "double-row," "clinical outcomes," and "functional outcomes" was conducted. Article inclusion criteria were an adequate description of the surgical technique, stratification of outcomes by intact rotator cuff versus retear with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, and documentation of the presence/absence of a full-thickness retear using imaging. Exclusion criteria were isolated subscapularis tears/repairs, labral repairs, infections, postoperative fractures, insufficient data or statistical indications, and postoperative data not stratified by retear versus intact rotator cuff. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on variables that had comparisons from at least 3 studies. Single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) studies were analyzed both separately and together in an "all arthroscopic repairs" (AAR) comparison. The calculated effect was considered significant at a P value <.05. RESULTS: Within the SR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -6.79 [-8.94 to -4.65]; P < .001) and lower University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score (-3.21 [-5.27 to -1.15]; P = .002) but not higher pain (0.071 [-0.34 to 0.49]; P = .739). Within the DR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -9.35 [-12.2 to -6.50]; P < .001), lower American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (-12.1 [-17.1 to -7.26]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.07 [-4.85 to -1.29]; P < .001), higher pain (0.622 [0.19 to 1.05]; P = .005), and lower abduction strength ( P < .001). In the AAR comparison, patients with a retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -7.56 [-9.55 to -5.57]; P < .001), lower ASES score (-10.1 [-15.5 to -4.64]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.00 [-4.47 to -1.53]; P < .001), and lower abduction strength (in kg·f) (-3.32 [-4.53 to -2.12]; P < .001) but not higher pain (0.332 [-0.014 to 0.680]; P = .060). CONCLUSION:Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff retear exhibited significantly lower clinical outcome scores and strength compared with patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff.
Authors: Mustafa Rashid; Jayesh Dudhia; Stephanie G Dakin; Sarah Snelling; Antonina Lach; Roberta De Godoy; Pierre-Alexis Mouthuy; Roger Smith; Mark Morrey; Andrew J Carr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240