Purpose
To retrospectively investigate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who underwent knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair (KT-RCR) compared with patients who underwent knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair (KL-RCR).
Methods
A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent double-row transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair in 2016 was performed at a single institution with 2-year follow-up. Information regarding demographic characteristics, preoperative tear size (magnetic resonance imaging), surgical variables (including method of suture stabilization), preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and all complications (e.g., cuff failure, adhesive capsulitis, and persistent pain) was compiled.
Results
A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria: 72 in the KL-RCR group and 117 in the KT-RCR group. No significant difference in preoperative ASES scores was found between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups (48.3 vs 45.4, P = .327). Postoperative ASES scores did not differ between the groups (82.4 for KL-RCR vs 78.8 for KT-RCR, P = .579). We found no significant difference in cuff failure rates after 2 years, determined by magnetic resonance imaging (5.6% for KL-RCR vs 6.1% for KT-RCR, P > .999), or complication rates (11.1% for KL-RCR vs 8.6% for KT-RCR, P = .743).
Conclusions
The knotted approach and knotless approach to double-row rotator cuff repair showed similar outcome scores, cuff failure rates, and complication rates at minimum 2-year follow-up.
Level of Evidence
Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative trial.
Rotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and discomfort.
1
In patients undergoing routine shoulder examinations and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, the incidence of full-thickness cuff tears has been reported to be as high as 1 in 5 patients in the general population.1
Arthroscopy has evolved into the preferred surgical technique in patients with rotator cuff tears warranting surgical intervention. Unfortunately, despite surgical and technical advancements, a large proportion of repaired rotator cuffs still fail to properly heal. A significant number of factors, both patient and surgeon driven, have been identified as key contributors to overall healing after repair of symptomatic rotator cuff tears.2
, 3
, 4
, 5
, 6
In an effort to improve repair outcomes, facilitate biological tendon healing, and restore optimal anatomic biomechanics at the supraspinatus footprint, transosseous-equivalent (TOE) rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) have been used and optimized.7
, 8
, 9
, 10
, 11
, 12
However, controversy remains regarding the best anchor configuration and suture technique.7
,8
,11
, 12
, 13
, 14
, 15
, 16
, 17
, 18
, 19
, 20
, - Millett P.J.
- Espinoza C.
- Horan M.P.
- et al.
Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: A propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137: 1399-1408
21
, 22
Although double-row TOE RCR has traditionally relied on knotted medial-row anchors, debate currently exists on whether to tie the medial row. Certain biomechanical studies have shown an increased contact area and less gap formation when the medial row is tied in double-row repair.
16
,18
,22
, 23
, 24
, 25
, 26
Conversely, Mijares et al.27
showed that no significant differences exist regarding displacement across the repair site, stiffness, and ultimate load to failure. Other studies have shown that even if present, biomechanical advantages may come at the expense of heightened strain at the medial suture level where the knots are tied.16
,28
It has not yet been determined whether biomechanical differences (in strength and contact pressure) impact clinical outcomes, rotator cuff healing rates, or postoperative pain levels. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that tying a knot may increase the risk of medial-row failure (type II failure) owing to potential compromise of vascular inflow to the healing tendon.25
,29
As a result, knotless medial anchors have been developed to improve vascular circulation and help prevent this complication.13
,16
However, from a clinical standpoint, the superiority of one fixation method over the other remains unclear.10
, 11
, 12
The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who underwent knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair (KT-RCR) compared with patients who underwent knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair (KL-RCR). We hypothesized that the functional outcomes and clinical findings of patients, including rates of postoperative complications and rotator cuff failure, would be similar between the 2 groups.
Methods
After institutional review board approval was obtained (No. 18D.623), patients who underwent RCR from August through December 2016 with Current Procedural Terminology code 29827 (“arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical, with rotator cuff repair”) were identified. A total of 189 patients treated at a single, large multicenter institution were thus included in this study. Patients undergoing revision RCR, open RCR, labral repair, total shoulder arthroplasty, or remplissage were excluded. A minimum follow-up period of 2 years was required for inclusion.
Data from surgeons’ charts and operative reports were retrospectively collected and evaluated by 3 independent reviewers (D.N., Z.H., and R.W.P.) trained in data collection by a fellowship-trained orthopaedic shoulder surgeon (S.H.). Demographic information including age at the time of surgery, sex, body mass index, surgical laterality, and hand dominance was collected. The preoperative rotator cuff tear size was classified using MRI in accordance with the system of DeOrio and Cofield
30
as small (<1 cm), medium (1-3 cm), large (3-5 cm), or massive (>5 cm and/or containing ≥2 rotator cuff tendons). Preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were compiled.31
Using surgeons’ operative reports, we recorded the number of anchors used, whether a knotted or knotless TOE RCR was performed, and concomitant subscapularis repair and/or biceps surgery (either tenotomy or tenodesis). Postoperative data on repair complications (rotator cuff failure, reoperation rate, adhesive capsulitis, persistent pain, persistent wound drainage, infection, or neurologic issues) and overall rates of rotator cuff failure (as determined by radiologist MRI reports) were gathered. After surgery, patients were placed on a rehabilitative protocol wherein they were instructed to wear a sling for 6 weeks and, depending on tear size, to began formal physical therapy at between 1 and 6 weeks postoperatively. Physical therapy began with controlled passive motion and worked to advance patients toward active range of motion. Patients underwent postoperative MRI only in instances in which clinical manifestations of repair failure were present; imaging indications in this patient subset included patients with marked pain and functional disability after the completion of their prescribed rehabilitative protocol, as well as those who experienced distinct shoulder reinjury events with physical examination findings indicative of impaired rotator cuff integrity. All surgical procedures were performed arthroscopically using medial-row anchors that were either tied and brought into lateral-row anchors or left untied and brought into lateral-row anchors to achieve double-row fixation. The number of anchors used was dependent on tear size.- Kocher M.S.
- Horan M.P.
- Briggs K.K.
- Richardson T.R.
- O’Holleran J.
- Hawkins R.J.
Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2006-2011
Statistics
The data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics software (IBM, Armonk, NY) to determine differences between patients undergoing knotted TOE RCR and those undergoing knotless TOE RCR. After confirmation of normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test, the Student t test was used to compare continuous data between groups whereas the χ2 test was used to analyze categorical data. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to assess the relations between the number of anchors used and postoperative ASES scores and between the preoperative rotator cuff tear size grade and postoperative ASES scores. A subanalysis of small or medium tears versus large or massive cuff tears was also performed to limit confounding effects. A minimal clinically important difference of 11.1 was used as validated by prior research of postoperative RCR patients.
32
The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05.Results
We identified 231 patients who underwent primary RCR during the study period. Of these patients, 189 had adequate documentation and follow-up data. Ultimately, 72 patients in the KL-RCR group versus 117 patients in the KT-RCR group met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The patients who underwent KL-RCR were significantly younger than those in the KT-RCR group (55.1 years vs 59.2 years, P = .002). We found no significant difference between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups regarding sex (31.9% female patients vs 29.9% female patients, P = .895) or side of surgery (45.8% right vs 60.7% right, P = .065). However, significantly fewer patients in the KL-RCR group underwent repair on the dominant arm (47.7% vs 66.7%, P = .020) (Table 1).
Table 1Demographic Information of Patients in KT-RCR and KL-RCR Cohorts
| Characteristic | KT-RCR (n = 117) | KL-RCR (n = 72) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, yr | 59.2 ± 8.5 | 55.1 ± 8.6 | .002 |
| Female sex, % (n) | 29.9 (35 of 117) | 31.9 (34 of 72) | .895 |
| BMI, mean ± SD | 29.8 ± 5.3 | 29.2 ± 5.4 | .245 |
| Right-sided surgery, % (n) | 60.7 (71 of 117) | 45.8 (33 of 72) | .065 |
| Dominant arm, n (%) | .528 | ||
| Left | 13 (11.7) | 5 (7.14) | |
| Right | 97 (87.4) | 64 (91.4) | |
| Ambidextrous | 1 (0.90) | 1 (1.43) | |
| Surgery on dominant arm, % | 66.70 | 47.70 | .020 |
BMI, body mass index; KL-RCR, knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair; KT-RCR, knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair; SD, standard deviation.
∗ Statistically significant (P < .05).
We observed significantly fewer small or medium tears (36.8% vs 56.4%, P = .013) and significantly more large or massive tears (63.2% vs 43.6%, P = .013) preoperatively in the KL-RCR group versus the KT-RCR group (Table 2). Subanalysis comparing small or medium tears versus large or massive tears showed no significant differences in complication rates (6.9% vs 11.1%, P = .20), revision rates (2.8% vs 3.4%, P = .82), or postoperative ASES scores (79.88 vs 81.14, P = .73). Furthermore, no significant difference in preoperative ASES scores was found between groups (48.3 vs 45.4, P = .327) (Table 2).
Table 2Preoperative Tear Size Breakdown and ASES Scores of Patients in KT-RCR and KL-RCR Cohorts
| KT-RCR (n = 117) | KL-RCR (n = 72) | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with small or medium tear size, % | 56.40 | 36.80 | .013 |
| Patients with large or massive tear size, % | 46.30 | 63.20 | .013 |
| Average preoperative ASES score, mean ± SD | 45.3 ± 19.9 | 48.3 ± 18.5 | .317 |
ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; KL-RCR, knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair; KT-RCR, knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair; SD, standard deviation.
∗ Statistically significant (P < .05).
Intraoperatively, patients in the KL-RCR group were significantly less likely to undergo concomitant subscapularis repair (6.9% vs 25.6%, P = .003) or to undergo biceps tenotomy or tenodesis (23.6% vs 43.6%, P = .005). In addition, we found a significant difference in the number of anchors used between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups (3.21 vs 2.27, P < .001) (Table 3).
Table 3Intraoperative Data of Patients in KT-RCR and KL-RCR Cohorts
| Operative Report Data | KT-RCR | KL-RCR | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of anchors used, mean ± SD | 2.27 ± 1.68 | 3.21 ± 0.9 | <.001 |
| Concomitant biceps intervention, % | 43.60 | 23.60 | .005 |
| Concomitant subscapularis repair, % | 25.60 | 6.90 | .003 |
KL-RCR, knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair; KT-RCR, knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair; SD, standard deviation.
∗ Statistically significant (P < .05).
There was no significant difference between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups regarding the rate of collection of follow-up data (87.5% vs 78.6%, P = .123) (Table 4). Average postoperative ASES scores did not differ between the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups (82.4 vs 79.4, P = .392). Most of the patients in the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups met the minimal clinically important difference regarding preoperative-to-postoperative improvement in the ASES score (83.6% vs 85.4%, P = .765). However, KL-RCR patients underwent follow-up for a significantly longer period on average (39.3 months vs 31.8 months, P = .014). We observed no significant difference in cuff failure rates after 2 years (5.6% for KL-RCR vs 6.1% for KT-RCR, P > .999), rates of all complications (cuff failure, reoperation, adhesive capsulitis, and persistent pain) (11.1% for KL-RCR vs 8.6% for KT-RCR, P = .743), or rates of revision RCR (5.6% for KL-RCR vs 1.7% for KT-RCR, P = .150) between the 2 groups (Table 4).
Table 4Postoperative Functional and Clinical Outcome Data of Patients in KT-RCR and KL-RCR Cohorts
| KT-RCR | KL-RCR | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up success, % (n) | 78.6 (92 of 117) | 87.5 (63 of 72) | .123 |
| Postoperative ASES score, mean ± SD | 79.4 ± 23.7 | 82.4 ± 19.1 | .392 |
| Patients with ASES score improvement exceeding MCID, % (n) | 85.4 (76 of 89) | 83.6 (51 of 61) | .765 |
| Follow-up period, mean ± SD, mo | 31.8 ± 18.3 | 39.3 ± 18.9 | .014 |
| Rate of all complications, % (n) | 8.6 (10) (cuff failure in 7, adhesive capsulitis and/or stiffness in 1, and persistent pain in 2) | 11.1 (8) (cuff failure in 4, adhesive capsulitis and/or stiffness in 3, and persistent pain in 1) | .743 |
| Rate of rotator cuff failure, % (n) | 6.1 (7) | 5.6 (4) | >.999 |
| Rate of rotator cuff revision, % (n) | 1.7 (2) | 5.6 (4) | .150 |
ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; KL-RCR, knotless medial-row rotator cuff repair; KT-RCR, knotted medial-row rotator cuff repair; MCID, minimal clinically important difference; SD, standard deviation.
∗ Statistically significant (P < .05).
No true relation was found between the number of anchors used and postoperative ASES scores (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.025). Furthermore, no relation was found between preoperative rotator cuff size grade and postoperative ASES scores (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.012).
Discussion
There were no significant differences in average ASES scores, rates of rotator cuff failure, or incidences of all other operative complications at long-term follow-up, confirming our initial study hypothesis. Therefore, both knotted and knotless TOE techniques are viable options when performing RCR.
Although there were no differences in clinical or functional outcomes between groups, there were several differences between the 2 study populations that make these findings notable. First, there was a significant difference in the preoperative tear sizes between the 2 cohorts, with a significantly larger proportion of patients in the KL-RCR group having large or massive tears. Failure rates after large and/or massive RCR have ranged from 34% to 94% across various studies
2
,33
, 34
, 35
; thus, the lack of a significant failure difference between the 2 groups may support the use of a knotless TOE RCR and the notion that its relative repair success may be underestimated in our study.The current literature also supports the idea that acceptable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction may mask underlying failures in healing. Galatz et al.
33
reported the radiographic failure rate after arthroscopic repair of large and massive tears to be as high as 94% in patients who simultaneously experienced marked functional improvement and substantial pain relief in activities of daily living. This finding was further substantiated by Chung et al.3
: Using a larger patient pool, they found that 39.8% of arthroscopically repaired massive rotator cuff tears showed anatomic failure despite significant functional gains. Our study substantiates this concept in that no true relation was found between preoperative rotator cuff tear size and postoperative ASES score in the knotless versus knotted TOE RCR groups (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.012). However, because routine MRI follow-up was not conducted in the absence of clinical indications of failure, the true rate of anatomic cuff failure after repair of these large or massive tears cannot be known for certain.As previously indicated, this study found no significant difference in postoperative ASES scores when comparing the KL-RCR and KT-RCR groups. This finding corroborates the results of prior studies on this topic while including data collection from a large patient population, with the collection of follow-up data on 155 patients. In a prospective cohort investigation, Kim et al.
15
reported similar functional outcomes between knotless and knotted TOE RCRs of medium to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears at short-term follow-up; their study showed no significant differences in healing rates or retear rates on advanced imaging. These comparable retear rates between approaches were substantiated in a systematic review performed by Kunze et al.36
in 2020, wherein the incidence and location of both type I (failure at the tendon-bone interface) and type II retears after knotless and knotted RCR were determined to be similar. The results of our study support those of Millett et al.,20
Hug et al.,- Millett P.J.
- Espinoza C.
- Horan M.P.
- et al.
Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: A propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137: 1399-1408
8
and Boyer et al.,7
who also found no significant differences in functional outcomes between knotless tape-bridging RCR and knotted suture-bridging RCR techniques.Intraoperatively, patients in the KL-RCR group were less likely to undergo biceps treatment (tenotomy or tenodesis) (23.6% vs 43.6%, P = .005), as well as subscapularis repair (6.9% vs 25.6%, P = .003), compared with the KT-RCR cohort. Despite this finding, we observed no significant differences in ASES scores postoperatively. The idea that concomitant biceps intervention does not lead to divergent results in patient-reported functional outcomes compared with isolated RCR has been readily substantiated by other studies. Keong and Tjoen
37
reported that biceps tenotomy during RCR did not lead to significant postoperative differences in functional outcomes when compared with RCR performed in isolation. Similarly, Kukkonen et al.38
found that treatment of the long head of the biceps tendon in the setting of arthroscopic RCR did not impair clinical outcomes as compared with no procedure.The average number of anchors used was significantly higher in the KL-RCR group (3.21 vs 2.27, P < .001). This finding is not surprising given that Lee et al.
5
showed that the number of anchors used is highly correlated with initial tear size and the KL-RCR group consisted of more patients with large or massive tears. Furthermore, our study found no true relation between the number of anchors used and postoperative ASES scores. This finding is in accordance with the results of other studies that have shown that the number of suture anchors is not an independent factor predictive of rotator cuff retear incidence or postoperative ASES scores.5
,20
- Millett P.J.
- Espinoza C.
- Horan M.P.
- et al.
Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: A propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137: 1399-1408
Limitations
Our study is not without limitations. The patients in this study did not undergo routine follow-up imaging during the postoperative period in the absence of clinical indications; thus, the true retear rate cannot be known. Additionally, neither the preoperative degree of muscular atrophy nor fatty degeneration was recorded or controlled for in this retrospective review, which may have confounded outcomes. There was a significant difference in follow-up duration between the 2 groups, although it is not likely that this dramatically impacted outcomes considering that each group was followed up for at least 2 years. Additionally, age at the time of surgery significantly differed between the 2 cohorts, with patients in the KL-RCR group being 4 years younger (55.1 years vs 59.2 years, P = .002). However, with the average age of both cohorts being below 60 years, this difference may not have substantially affected outcomes.
6
Furthermore, this was a retrospective study, lacking randomization, thereby increasing the chance of underlying bias. Specifically, patient selection for knotted versus knotless TOE double-row repair was based on individual surgeon decision making, thus increasing the potential for selection bias in our study. Different surgeons generally contributed to each subset (5 KL-RCR surgeons vs 10 KT-RCR surgeons), which may have contributed to outcomes. Although our numbers represent a large study population in comparison to the current literature, there is potential that our numbers are too low to detect a clinically significant difference between groups.
Conclusions
The knotted approach and knotless approach to double-row RCR showed similar outcome scores, cuff failure rates, and complication rates at minimum 2-year follow-up.
Supplementary Data
- ICMJE author disclosure forms
References
- Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 116-120
- Factors affecting healing after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.World J Orthop. 2015; 6: 211-220
- Arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: Outcome and analysis of factors associated with healing failure or poor postoperative function.Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41: 1674-1683
- Is early passive motion exercise necessary after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair?.Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 815-821
- Evaluation of the risk factors for a rotator cuff retear after repair surgery.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 1755-1761
- Prognostic factors affecting rotator cuff healing after arthroscopic repair in small to medium-sized tears.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 2386-2392
- Arthroscopic double-row cuff repair with suture-bridging: A structural and functional comparison of two techniques.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23: 478-486
- Arthroscopic knotless-anchor rotator cuff repair: A clinical and radiological evaluation.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23: 2628-2634
- “Transosseous-equivalent” rotator cuff repair technique.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 1360.e1-1360.e5
- Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Single-row vs. double-row—Clinical results after one to four years.Rev Bras Ortop. 2018; 53: 448-453
- Summary of meta-analyses dealing with single-row versus double-row repair techniques for rotator cuff tears.Open Orthop J. 2016; 10: 330-338
- Single-row vs. double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Clinical and 3 Tesla MR arthrography results.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14: 43
- A biomechanical comparison of 2 techniques of footprint reconstruction for rotator cuff repair: The SwiveLock-FiberChain construct versus standard double-row repair.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 274-281
- National trends in rotator cuff repair.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 227
- Clinical outcomes and repair integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using suture-bridge technique with or without medial tying: Prospective comparative study.J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13: 1-8
- Footprint contact area and interface pressure comparison between the knotless and knot-tying transosseous-equivalent technique for rotator cuff repair.Arthroscopy. 2016; 32: 7-12
- A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single-row with double-row fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 1249-1257
- Biomechanical evaluation of four different transosseous-equivalent/suture bridge rotator cuff repairs.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19: 1582-1587
- Transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair: A systematic review on the biomechanical importance of tying the medial row.Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 377-386
- Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: A propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137: 1399-1408
- Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Scientific rationale, surgical technique, and early clinical and functional results of a knotless self-reinforcing double-row rotator cuff repair system.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19: 83-90
- Biomechanical comparison of modified suture bridge using rip-stop versus traditional suture bridge for rotator cuff repair.Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 9872643
- A biomechanical comparison of 2 technical variations of double-row rotator cuff fixation: The importance of medial row knots.Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36: 901-906
- Comparison of completely knotless and hybrid double-row fixation systems: A biomechanical study.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 479-485
- Knotless rotator cuff repair in an external rotation model: The importance of medial-row horizontal mattress sutures.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 471-478
- Comparison of mechanical stability in double-row rotator cuff repairs between a knotless transtendon construct versus the addition of medial knots.Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: S127-S133
- Is it necessary to tie the medial row in rotator cuff repair double-row constructs when using suture tape?.J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020; 11: S378-S382
- Transosseous-equivalent repair with and without medial row suture tying: A cadaveric study of infraspinatus tendon strain measurement.JSES Open Access. 2017; 1: 104-108
- Retear patterns after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Single-row versus suture bridge technique.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 664-671
- Results of a second attempt at surgical repair of a failed initial rotator-cuff repair.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984; 66: 563-567
- Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2006-2011
- Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28: 939-948
- The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 219-224
- The results of repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 505-515
- Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs at 5 years: Part II—Prognostic factors for clinical and radiographic outcomes.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20: 941-946
- Does the use of knotted versus knotless transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair technique influence the incidence of retears? A systematic review.Arthroscopy. 2020; 36: 1738-1746
- Does bicep pathology affect rotator cuff repair outcomes?.J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2018; 26 (2309499018762852)
- The effect of biceps procedure on the outcome of rotator cuff reconstruction.ISRN Orthop. 2013; 2013: 840965
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 27, 2021
Accepted:
October 16,
2021
Received:
June 16,
2021
Footnotes
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: M.G.C. is a board or committee member of American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), Major League Baseball Team Physicians Association, and Orthopaedic Learning Center. K.B.F. is a paid consultant for DePuy (A Johnson & Johnson Company) and Vericel, outside the submitted work, and is a board or committee member of AOSSM. B.J.E. receives research support from DePuy (A Johnson & Johnson Company), Linvatec, Stryker, Smith & Nephew, and Arthrex, outside the submitted work; is a paid consultant for Arthrex, outside the submitted work; and is a board or committee member of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), AOSSM, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. S.H. owns stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work, and is a board or committee member of AAOS, AOSSM, Orthopaedic Learning Center, Perry Initiative, and Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society. M.E.B. is a board or committee member of AAOS and AOSSM. These potential conflicts of interest have been interpreted correctly. However, we would like to emphasize and clarify that there were no sources of funding for this study. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the Arthroscopy Association of North America
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
