Clinical comparison between double-row and transosseous-equivalent repairs for medium to large size rotator cuff tears

Abstract

The transosseous-equivalent (TOE) repair of the rotator cuff tears was invented to make up for several shortcomings of the double-row (DR) repair. However, no studies have compared the clinical aspects of the DR repair and the TOE technique, supporting the superior results of the TOE technique over the DR repair, including the benefit of minimizing surgical steps. We asked whether differences existed between the two repairs regarding clinical outcomes, time and costs. Subjects included 55 using the DR repair and 119 using the TOE repair for the medium to large sized rotator cuff tears. Clinical outcomes were measured with a Visual Analog Scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, and shoulder strength. For practical aspects, operative time and number of suture anchors used for the medial and lateral rows were compared. Both repairs brought substantial improvements in pain and function. However, significant differences were not detected between the repairs in all the clinical measurements. Regarding operative time and costs, in the medium size tears, a statistical difference was found only in the anchors used for the lateral row. In the large size tears, the DR repair required more operation time than the TOE repair, while the TOE repair used more anchors for the lateral row. This study failed to demonstrate clinical differences between the techniques. However, when stratifying rotator cuff tears according to the tear sizes, significant differences were found in operative time and cost: the DR repair had the advantage of cost effectiveness by saving anchors for the lateral row, while the TOE repair required less operative time with more anchors used for the lateral row in the large size tears. This finding provides evidence to support the use of the TOE repair to reduce surgical steps.