Comparison of suture-bridge and independent double-row techniques for medium to massive posterosuperior cuff tears: a two-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Transosseous-equivalent suture-bridge (TOE-SB) and independent double-row (IDR) repair techniques were developed to treat rotator cuff tears. The study was designed to prove that both TOE-SB and IDR techniques provided comparable clinical results and retear rate for medium to massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears, while the surgical time and number of suture anchor used were less in the IDR group.

STUDY DESIGN: Level of evidence: level III, Retrospective comparative study.

METHODS: Patients with medium to massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears receiving arthroscopic TOE-SB and IDR between November 2016 to October 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. All patients were confirmed to have grade ≤ 2 fatty infiltration in the muscles of the torn tendons. Revision, concomitant subscapularis tear, acromiohumeral distance < 7 mm, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, partial repair, incomplete repair, partial thickness, or irreparable posterosuperior cuff tear were excluded. Surgical time, number of suture anchor used for the surgery, pre-operative, and post-operative clinical scores such as Constant-Murley score, subjective shoulder value (SSV), and visual analog scale (VAS) were compared. The retear rates between groups were evaluated by ultrasound.

RESULTS: Thirty-five IDR and thirty-five TOE-SB repairs were enrolled. The IDR technique required much fewer anchors than TOE-SB did to complete the cuff repair. The mean operation time in IDR and TOE-SB group were 86(18.23), and 114(18.7) (min), respectively (P <  0.01). The mean number of anchors used to complete the cuff repair was 2(0.17) in IDR and 3(0.61) in TOE-SB (P <  0.01). The Constant-Murley score improved from 34.9 ± 6.6 to 80.6 ± 9.4 in the IDR group, and 37.4 ± 6 to 81.9 ± 4.6 in the TOE-SB group (both P <  0.001). SSV improved from 24.6 ± 9.6 to 79.3 ± 10.6 in the IDR, and 27.9 ± 9 to 82.9 ± 6.9 in the TOE-SB group (both P <  0.001). VAS improved from 7.9 ± 0.6 to 1.5 ± 0.7 in the IDR, and 8 ± 0.5 to 1.3 ± 0.6 in the TOE-SB group (both P <  0.001) at final follow-up. No significant difference was found between the retear rates (14.3% in the IDR vs. 17.1% in the TOE-SB, respectively) in the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Both IDR and TOE-SB group provided comparable clinical results and retear rates for medium to massive posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. The surgical time and number of anchors used were less in the IDR group than in the TOE-SB group.