Comparing Conventional Double-Row With Transosseous Equivalent Suture Bridge Fixation in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND

Biomechanical studies have shown that the transosseous equivalent suture bridge (TOE-SB) rotator cuff repair technique improves contact areas and pressure between the tendon and footprint, which may facilitate healing. However, few studies have directly compared its outcomes with traditional double-row (DR) repair.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The primary objectives of this study were to (1) compare the functional outcomes of DR with TOE-SB fixation in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and (2) compare healing rates between the 2 groups and investigate whether any factors were associated with healing. It was hypothesized that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using DR repair would demonstrate no difference in disease-specific quality of life, patient-reported outcomes, or healing rates compared with TOE-SB repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This was a cohort study conducted as a subanalysis of 2 larger randomized controlled trials. Patients ≥18 years old with degenerative rotator cuff tears confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging who had persistent symptoms of pain and functional impairment after 6 months of nonoperative management were enrolled in prospective randomized controlled trials and underwent either a traditional DR repair or a TOE-SB rotator cuff repair. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and the Constant score at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Healing rates were determined using ultrasound at 24 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were included in this study; 34 patients underwent conventional DR repair and 150 underwent TOE-SB repair. Postoperative changes in the outcome measures from baseline were statistically significant for all outcomes in both groups ( < .0001). No statistically significant differences were found between outcomes at any of the follow-up times, except a significant difference in the Constant score at 24 months in favor of the DR group (mean ± SE, 80.5 ± 1.1 [95% CI, 78.4-82.7]) and TOE-SB and DR, respectively (mean ± SE, 85.7 ± 2.2 [95% CI, 81.2-90.1]) ( = .041). Healing rates were 77.8% for DR and 83% for TOE-SB (odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.53-3.38]; = .53). Multivariable regression analysis showed a positive correlation between nonhealing rates and the rotator cuff tear size in the sagittal plane (odds ratio, 1.97 (95% CI, 1.02-3.78); = .042).

CONCLUSION

No difference was found between DR and TOE-SB rotator cuff repair in the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff index, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant strength subscore, or the healing rate. The Constant score at the 24-month follow-up favored DR repair but did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. An association was found between higher healing rates and smaller sagittal plane tear sizes.