Clinical outcome and repair integrity after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Triple-row versus suture-bridge techniques.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity of the triple-row technique and suture-bridge technique in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

METHODS

Among patients with more than two years of follow-up (mean 27.4 ± 7.2 months), 71 shoulders that underwent the triple-row technique (46 male and 25 female; mean age, 62.7 ± 10.1 years; small-to-medium tears, 42 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 29 shoulders) and 64 shoulders that underwent the suture-bridge technique (43 male and 21 female; mean age, 65.5 ± 8.4 years; small-to-medium tears, 46 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 18 shoulders) were examined. The patient background, operation time, number of anchors used during the operation, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Active range of motion, and retear rate were evaluated and compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the patient background between the two techniques. The JOA score and Active range of motion were significantly improved compared to preoperative scores; however, there were no difference between the two techniques. The number of anchors used during the operation was 5.4 ± 1.6 for the triple-row technique and 4.1 ± 1.9 for the suture-bridge technique. Although significantly more anchors were used for the triple-row technique, there was no significant difference in the operation time between the two techniques. The retear rate was 7.1% for small-to-medium tears and 3.4% for large-to-massive tears using the triple-row technique, and 10.9% for small-to-medium tears and 33.3% for large-to-massive tears using the suture-bridge technique. The retear rate was significantly lower in large-to-massive tears when using the triple-row technique.

CONCLUSION

The triple-row technique was an effective method compared to the suture-bridge technique in cases with large-to-massive tears.