Nemirov Daniel, Herman Zachary, Paul Ryan W, Clements Ari, Beucherie Matthew, Brutico Joseph, Hadley Christopher J, Ciccotti Michael G, Freedman Kevin B, Erickson Brandon J, Hammoud Sommer, Bishop Meghan E
Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021 Nov 27;4(2):e381-e386. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.10.015. eCollection 2022 Apr.
To retrospectively investigate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who underwent knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair (KT-RCR) compared with patients who underwent knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair (KL-RCR).
A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent double-row transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair in 2016 was performed at a single institution with 2-year follow-up. Information regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative tear size (magnetic resonance imaging), surgical variables (including method of suture stabilization), preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and all complications (e.g., cuff failure, adhesive capsulitis, and persistent pain) was compiled.
A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria: 72 in the KL-RCR group and 117 in the KT-RCR group. No significant difference in preoperative ASES scores was found between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups (48.3 vs 45.4, = .327). Postoperative ASES scores did not differ between the groups (82.4 for KL-RCR vs 78.8 for KT-RCR, = .579). We found no significant difference in cuff failure rates after 2 years, determined by magnetic resonance imaging (5.6% for KL-RCR vs 6.1% for KT-RCR, > .999), or complication rates (11.1% for KL-RCR vs 8.6% for KT-RCR, = .743).
The knotted approach and knotless approach to double-row rotator cuff repair showed similar outcome scores, cuff failure rates, and complication rates at minimum 2-year follow-up.
Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative trial.
回顾性研究接受带结内侧排肩袖修复术（KT-RCR）的患者与接受无结内侧排肩袖修复术（KL-RCR）的患者的临床和功能结局。
在一家机构对2016年接受双排等效骨隧道肩袖修复术的患者进行回顾性病历审查，并进行2年随访。收集有关人口统计学特征、术前撕裂大小（磁共振成像）、手术变量（包括缝线固定方法）、术前和术后美国肩肘外科医师（ASES）评分以及所有并发症（如肩袖失效、粘连性关节囊炎和持续性疼痛）的信息。
共有189例患者符合纳入标准：KL-RCR组72例，KT-RCR组117例。KL-RCR组和KT-RCR组术前ASES评分无显著差异（48.3对45.4，P = 0.327）。两组术后ASES评分无差异（KL-RCR组为82.4，KT-RCR组为78.8，P = 0.579）。我们发现，通过磁共振成像确定的2年后肩袖失效率（KL-RCR组为5.6%，KT-RCR组为6.1%，P > 0.999）或并发症发生率（KL-RCR组为11.1%，KT-RCR组为8.6%，P = 0.743）无显著差异。
在至少2年的随访中，双排肩袖修复术的带结法和无结法在结局评分、肩袖失效率和并发症发生率方面表现相似。
III级，回顾性治疗比较试验。
