Poster 127: Repairs of Isolated Supraspinatus Tears: Single vs. Double Row Repairs Effect on Patient-Reported Outcomes Over a 2-Year Episode of Care

Abstract

Objectives: Rotator cuff tears are the most common cause of shoulder disability, most commonly affecting the middle-aged population. Treatment for rotator cuff tears has changed dramatically over the past few decades, with overall volume of rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) increasing by approximately 1.6% each year. Simultaneously, there has been a shift from open, inpatient RCR to arthroscopic, outpatient procedures. Currently, well over 75% of patients undergo arthroscopic repair. The two most common techniques for rotator cuff fixation include single- or double-row fixation. Cadaveric and biomechanical studies demonstrate more complete reduction of the rotator cuff to its original footprint with double row repair, with a subsequent increase in anatomic restoration and biomechanical advantage. Many studies regarding clinical and functional outcomes, however, have not consistently demonstrated statistically significant differences between the two. The purpose of this study is to determine differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after single- and double-row rotator cuff repairs at one and two years postoperatively. We hypothesize that single-row RCR will have noninferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared to the double-row RCR cohort over the 2-year episode of care. Primary outcomes include baseline, 1-year and 2-year postoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. Methods: All patients within a single health system that underwent primary rotator cuff repair between 2016 and 2022 were eligible for inclusion in this study. Exclusion criteria included incomplete baseline PROs, involvement of infraspinatus, subscapularis or teres minor tendons, revision surgeries, and concomitant fractures of the shoulder. Demographic information including age, sex, BMI, ASA score, injury characteristics and medical comorbidities were obtained through review of the patients’ electronic medical record. Surgical characteristics and technique were obtained from operative notes. PROs were collected prospectively and stored in a HIPAA-compliant electronic database until retrospective review for this study. Primary outcomes of interest include SANE score at baseline, 1-year and 2-years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of interest included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global 10 health questionnaire scores, rates of symptomatic retear and reoperation. Statistical analysis included descriptive analyses, paired t-tests, chi-squared test of independence and one-way ANOVA as appropriate. Statistical significance was defined as an alpha value of p ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 237 patients met criteria for inclusion in this study, the majority of which were female (122, 51.5%). The average BMI was 30.0 ± 5.6, and the average age of the study participants was 59.0 ± 9.4 years. The majority of patients underwent double-row RCR (134, 56.5%). There were no significant differences in age, BMI, ASA score, gender, or smoking status between the two groups (Table 1). There was a higher observed frequency of diabetes mellitus than expected in the double-row cohort, however this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.066). There was no significant difference in symptomatic retear, revision RCR, and other reoperation rates between the two cohorts (Table 2). The cohort that received double-row repair had a higher observed frequency of full-thickness tears than expected (p <0.001), however there was no significant difference in the observed frequencies of chronic and acute tears between the two cohorts. Baseline ASES scores did not differ significantly between the two cohorts (p = 0.505). Both cohorts saw statistically significant increase in ASES scores from baseline to 1-year (Figure 1). The difference between 1-year and 2-year ASES scores was less than a quarter of the improvement seen in the first year postoperatively, however, was still statistically significant in the double-row cohort and neared statistical significance in the single-row cohort (p = 0.048 and p = 0.075, respectively). While both cohorts saw significant improvement in ASES scores over the 2-year period, there was no significant difference in score change between the two cohorts. The baseline SANE scores were 40.7 ± 20.6 and 43.2 ± 21.4 for the double and single-row cohorts respectively. Each cohort saw statistically significant increases in SANE scores at 1 year postoperatively and continued to see significant increase between 1- and 2-years postoperatively (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts regarding 1- and 2-year change in SANE scores. Conclusions: Over a 2-year period of care after RCR, patients saw significant improvement in SANE and ASES scores, with the majority occurring in the first year postoperatively. There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between patients that underwent double- and single-row repairs. Single- and double-row RCRs perform comparably over a 2-year episode of care, with excellent clinical and patient-reported outcomes. [Figure: see text]