A Propensity Score–Matched Comparison Between Knotless Layer-by-Layer and En Masse Suture Bridge Techniques for Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears. Issue 8 (July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Hyungsuk; Park, Soo Bin; Song, Hyun Seok
• Is Part Of: American journal of sports medicine. Volume 50:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 2219
• Page End: 2226
• Publication Date: 2022-07
• Subjects: supraspinatus -- delamination -- knotless -- layer-by-layer -- suture bridge technique; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.102705
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465221093809
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-5465

Abstract

Background: Because the articular layer is more prone to retraction than the bursal layer of the supraspinatus tendon, it is important to restore each layer anatomically while repairing delaminated rotator cuff tears (RCTs). Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes and tendon integrity between knotless layer–by–layer and conventional en masse repair techniques for delaminated RCTs. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data from 174 consecutive patients with delaminated RCTs treated by arthroscopic suture bridge repair. Only 115 patients with medium to large supraspinatus tears with delamination were included. The 33 patients treated using the knotless layer–by–layer technique (group 2) were matched 1:1 with patients treated using en masse repair with the suture bridge technique (group 1) based on propensity scores. Tendon thickness was measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Signal changes in the bursal, articular, and intratendinous layers were assessed using T2-weighted MRI. Results: Postoperatively, statistically significant improvements were seen in both groups compared with preoperatively functional scores. At the final follow–up, there was a statistically significant difference in the Constant score, which was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (91.4 ± 6.0 and 84.3 ± 16.4, respectively; P = .005). There was 1 case of a retear in each group, representing a 3% retear rate. Group 2 had thicker tendons than group 1 (6.9 ± 1.1 and 6.0 ± 1.2 mm, respectively; P = .017). On T2-weighted MRI, a low signal intensity in the articular layer was more common in group 2 ( P = .046). Conclusion: En masse repair using the suture bridge technique and the knotless layer–by–layer technique were both effective. Regarding tendon healing, no significant differences were seen in retear rates. However, superior results in terms of the Constant score, tendon thickness, and signal intensity in the articular layer were observed using the knotless layer–by–layer technique.