Michael A Fox1, Jonathan D Hughes2, Nicholas P Drain2, Nyaluma Wagala2, Neel Patel2, Ehab Nazzal2, Adam Popchak3, Soheil Sabsevari3, Bryson P Lesniak2, Albert Lin2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Pittsburgh Shoulder Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. foxma4@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Pittsburgh Shoulder Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1010, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare failure rates and outcomes after transosseous equivalent (TOE) double row (DR) knotted suture bridge versus knotless suture tape bridge repair techniques for rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A consecutive series of 272 shoulders in 256 patients who underwent arthroscopic, double row, TOE repair for full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon were reviewed. Eighty-four shoulders were repaired using knotted suture bridge (KSB) technique, and 188 shoulders were repaired using all knotless suture tape bridge (KTB) technique. Revision procedures and concomitant subscapularis tendon repairs were excluded from analysis. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. Primary outcome was failure of surgical repair, defined as either confirmed retear on MRI and/or need for revision surgery. Secondary clinical outcome measures were assessed including range of motion, strength, visual analog scale (VAS), operative time, subjective shoulder value (SSV), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mental and physical health, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Brophy shoulder activity scores, and need for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). RESULTS: A total of 127 shoulders (38 KSB and 89 KTB) met inclusion criteria for the study. No significant difference in demographic variables were present between the groups at baseline. Supraspinatus tear size and average follow-up time did not differ significantly between groups. Failure rates were similar between the KSB and KTB repairs (13.1 vs 7.9%, n.s.). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes including strength, range of motion in forward flexion and external rotation, as well as patient reported outcomes including VAS, SSV, PROMIS, ASES, and Brophy scores between the groups. There was also no difference in post-operative stiffness requiring MUA. CONCLUSION: Both KSB and KTB repair techniques demonstrate low retear rates with excellent functional outcomes when compared to pre-operative examination. Both KSB and KTB techniques are viable options for achieving a successful rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: To compare failure rates and outcomes after transosseous equivalent (TOE) double row (DR) knotted suture bridge versus knotless suture tape bridge repair techniques for rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A consecutive series of 272 shoulders in 256 patients who underwent arthroscopic, double row, TOE repair for full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon were reviewed. Eighty-four shoulders were repaired using knotted suture bridge (KSB) technique, and 188 shoulders were repaired using all knotless suture tape bridge (KTB) technique. Revision procedures and concomitant subscapularis tendon repairs were excluded from analysis. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. Primary outcome was failure of surgical repair, defined as either confirmed retear on MRI and/or need for revision surgery. Secondary clinical outcome measures were assessed including range of motion, strength, visual analog scale (VAS), operative time, subjective shoulder value (SSV), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mental and physical health, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Brophy shoulder activity scores, and need for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). RESULTS: A total of 127 shoulders (38 KSB and 89 KTB) met inclusion criteria for the study. No significant difference in demographic variables were present between the groups at baseline. Supraspinatus tear size and average follow-up time did not differ significantly between groups. Failure rates were similar between the KSB and KTB repairs (13.1 vs 7.9%, n.s.). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes including strength, range of motion in forward flexion and external rotation, as well as patient reported outcomes including VAS, SSV, PROMIS, ASES, and Brophy scores between the groups. There was also no difference in post-operative stiffness requiring MUA. CONCLUSION: Both KSB and KTB repair techniques demonstrate low retear rates with excellent functional outcomes when compared to pre-operative examination. Both KSB and KTB techniques are viable options for achieving a successful rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.