No Difference in Outcome Between Articular-Sided and Bursal-Sided Tears: Comparative Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up of Arthroscopic Repairs in 104 Patients in a Single-Surgeon Series.

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the functional outcomes after arthroscopic repair of bursal-sided versus articular-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone arthroscopic tear completion and subsequent repair of symptomatic partial-thickness rotator cuff tears in a single institution from 2010 to 2015. Range of motion (ROM) (forward flexion and abduction), the pain score as measured on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and outcome scores (Constant-Murley score, University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score, and Oxford Shoulder Score) were calculated preoperatively and at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. The delta difference was calculated for each outcome parameter at the respective follow-up points as the difference from the preoperative baseline score.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included. All tears involved the supraspinatus tendon and did not exceed 2 cm. Of the patients, 65 had an articular-sided tear (AST) whereas 39 had a bursal-sided tear (BST). The mean age of the patients was 53.4 years in the AST group and 55.8 years in the BST group. The AST and BST groups did not differ preoperatively in terms of age, sex, and the measured outcome parameters. Postoperatively, the patients in both groups achieved statistically significant improvement in pain relief and functional outcomes at 2 years. No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of the delta-difference outcomes in ROM in forward flexion (P = .781) or abduction (P = .348), pain score (P = .187), Constant-Murley score (P = .186), University of California, Los Angeles shoulder score (P = .911), and Oxford Shoulder Score (P = .186) at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears treated with arthroscopic tear completion and subsequent repair achieved good outcomes in terms of ROM, functional outcomes, and pain relief at 2 years. There was no difference in outcomes regardless of whether the location of the tear was articular sided or bursal sided.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.