An isolated bioinductive repair vs sutured repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: 2-year results of a double blinded, randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundPartial-thickness rotator cuff tears treated with an isolated bioinductive repair (IBR) in lieu of a completion-and-repair have shown complete healing. This treatment option is afforded by the remaining tendon’s structural integrity, which is similar to that present in small/medium full-thickness tears (FTTs) when the rotator cable remains intact. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated whether an IBR for small/medium FTTs resulted in superior healing and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with a sutured repair. MethodsThis prospective, double blinded (patients and outcome assessors), single-center RCT enrolled patients ≥18 years with a small/medium (≤2.5cm) full thickness supraspinatus tear and intact rotator cable. Patients were randomized and blinded to arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent repair (control, n = 30) or IBR (n = 30). The primary outcome was tendon quality on biopsy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were PROs (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant-Murley Shoulder [CMS], and pain visual analogue scale scores) and tendon thickness and healing measured via MRI at 6, 12, and 24 months; satisfaction at 12 and 24 months; and time to return to work. ResultsBaseline demographic, tear, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the groups (IBR: mean age, 54.2 years, 14 male; control: mean age, 56.4 years, 16 male). Measured via 6 month biopsy, highly organized, parallel bundles of collagen, without inflammation, were present in all IBR patients, whereas poorly organized, non-parallel collagen fibers were present in 24/30 (80%) of control patients (P < .0001), with 28/30 having minimal to mild inflammation. The increase in tendon thickness measured via MRI at 6 months from baseline was greater in the IBR group (2.0 mm) than in the control group (0.8 mm) (P < .0001). All IBR patients had 100% healing on MRI at 12 and 24 months. Compared with the control group, the IBR group had higher ASES and CMS scores at each evaluation, less pain at 6 and 12 months, and greater satisfaction at 12 and 24 months (P < .0003). The IBR group returned to work significantly faster (median 90 days [IQR, 25] vs. median 163.5 days [IQR, 24]; P < .0001) than the control group. ConclusionCompared with a sutured repair, the IBR treatment resulted in superior tendon quality, patient outcomes, satisfaction, and return to work. The IBR enabled a robust healing response evident through MRI and biopsy evaluation, demonstrating superior tendon quality and healing.