Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair

Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair

Background This retrospective observational study compared outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery using double row anchor repair (DRR) versus transosseous anchorless repair (TAR) in patients with small to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Methods A total of 42 patients underwent DRR (n...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shyam Sundar, Rohit Mahesh Sane, Raghulraj Sundaramoorthy, Munis Ashraf, David V Rajan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society 2024-11-01
Series:Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
Subjects:
rotator cuff repair
double-row repair
transosseous repair
anchorless repair
functional outcomes
Online Access:http://cisejournal.org/upload/pdf/cise-2024-00556.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background This retrospective observational study compared outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery using double row anchor repair (DRR) versus transosseous anchorless repair (TAR) in patients with small to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Methods A total of 42 patients underwent DRR (n=20) or TAR (n=22) between January 2022 and May 2023. Patients were matched based on age, sex, body mass index, and tear severity. Baseline demographics, including diabetes, smoking status, and Cofield classification, were compared. Functional outcomes were assessed using University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, along with range of motion (ROM) parameters: forward flexion, extension, internal rotation, ex­ternal rotation, and abduction. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P>0.05). TAR showed higher UCLA scores at 3 and 6 months (P<0.001) and superior ASES scores at 3 (P=0.025) and 6 months (P<0.001) compared to DRR. By 1 year, no significant differences were observed in UCLA (P=0.101), ASES (P=0.051), or ROM parameters (P>0.05). Conclusions Both DRR and TAR showed comparable outcomes at 1 year. However, TAR demonstrated early functional benefits at 3 and 6 months, indicating potential advantages in the initial recovery phase. Level of evidence III.
ISSN:2288-8721

Similar Items