Arthroscopic Repair of Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: Complete Repair with Aggressive Release Compared with Partial Repair Alone at a Minimum Follow-up of 5 Years. (15th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jeong, Jeung Yeol; Kim, Sung-Jae; Yoon, Tae-Hwan; Eum, Kwang-Sik; Chun, Yong-Min
• Is Part Of: Journal of bone and joint surgery. Volume 102:Number 14(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-07-15
• Subjects: Bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Joints -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Orthopedics; General Surgery; Bone Diseases; Joint Diseases; Bones -- Surgery; Joints -- Surgery; Orthopedics; Bot (anatomie); Gewrichten; Chirurgie (geneeskunde); Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.19.01014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9355

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of large and massive rotator tears treated with arthroscopic complete repair with a posterior interval slide compared with partial repair without a posterior interval slide at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Methods: This study included 58 patients with large and massive rotator cuff tears that were unable to be treated with arthroscopic complete repair with an anterior interval slide and margin convergence alone. Each patient underwent either arthroscopic complete repair with an additional posterior interval slide and a subsequent side-to-side repair of the interval slide edge (complete-repair group) or arthroscopic partial repair with margin convergence and without the additional posterior interval slide (partial-repair group). Patient assignment to treatment group was not randomized. Clinical assessments included the visual analog scale pain score, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the University of California Los Angeles shoulder score, and active range of motion. Preoperative and 6-month follow-up magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) images were compared within and between groups. Results: At the time of the latest follow-up evaluation, both groups had significant improvements in clinical outcomes (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between groups. A retear was identified in 22 (88%) of the 25 patients in the complete-repair group and 28 (85%) of the 33 patients in the partial-repair group. Patients in the complete-repair group had larger retear sizes (p = 0.001) and reduced acromiohumeral intervals (p = 0.007) compared with those in the partial-repair group. Conclusions: Although larger retear size on early postoperative MRA led to significantly reduced acromiohumeral intervals in the complete-repair group, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups during the minimum 5-year follow-up period. Therefore, it may be preferable to perform partial rotator cuff repair rather than aggressive release in large and massive rotator cuff tears to achieve complete repair. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.