The clinical effect of a retear after rotator cuff repair remains unclear. While some studies have indicated clinical deficits due to a retear, others have stated that a retear does not detrimentally affect outcomes.
Purpose
To conduct a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between intact and retorn rotator cuffs after arthroscopic repair.
Methods
Study Design: Meta-analysis.
A literature search using the terms "arthroscopic," "rotator cuff," "repair," "retear," "re-tear," "defect," "single-row," "double-row," "clinical outcomes," and "functional outcomes" was conducted.
Article inclusion criteria were an adequate description of the surgical technique, stratification of outcomes by intact rotator cuff versus retear with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, and documentation of the presence/absence of a full-thickness retear using imaging.
Exclusion criteria were isolated subscapularis tears/repairs, labral repairs, infections, postoperative fractures, insufficient data or statistical indications, and postoperative data not stratified by retear versus intact rotator cuff.
A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on variables that had comparisons from at least 3 studies.
Single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) studies were analyzed both separately and together in an "all arthroscopic repairs" (AAR) comparison.
The calculated effect was considered significant at a P value <.05.
Results
Within the SR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -6.79 [-8.94 to -4.65]; P < .001) and lower University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score (-3.21 [-5.27 to -1.15]; P = .002) but not higher pain (0.071 [-0.34 to 0.49]; P = .739).
Within the DR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -9.35 [-12.2 to -6.50]; P < .001), lower American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (-12.1 [-17.1 to -7.26]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.07 [-4.85 to -1.29]; P < .001), higher pain (0.622 [0.19 to 1.05]; P = .005), and lower abduction strength ( P < .001).
In the AAR comparison, patients with a retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -7.56 [-9.55 to -5.57]; P < .001), lower ASES score (-10.1 [-15.5 to -4.64]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.00 [-4.47 to -1.53]; P < .001), and lower abduction strength (in kg·f) (-3.32 [-4.53 to -2.12]; P < .001) but not higher pain (0.332 [-0.014 to 0.680]; P = .060).
Conclusions
Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff retear exhibited significantly lower clinical outcome scores and strength compared with patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff.
The clinical effect of a retear after rotator cuff repair remains unclear. While some studies have indicated clinical deficits due to a retear, others have stated that a retear does not detrimentally affect outcomes.
Purpose
To conduct a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes between intact and retorn rotator cuffs after arthroscopic repair.
Methods
Study Design: Meta-analysis.
A literature search using the terms "arthroscopic," "rotator cuff," "repair," "retear," "re-tear," "defect," "single-row," "double-row," "clinical outcomes," and "functional outcomes" was conducted.
Article inclusion criteria were an adequate description of the surgical technique, stratification of outcomes by intact rotator cuff versus retear with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, and documentation of the presence/absence of a full-thickness retear using imaging.
Exclusion criteria were isolated subscapularis tears/repairs, labral repairs, infections, postoperative fractures, insufficient data or statistical indications, and postoperative data not stratified by retear versus intact rotator cuff.
A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model on variables that had comparisons from at least 3 studies.
Single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) studies were analyzed both separately and together in an "all arthroscopic repairs" (AAR) comparison.
The calculated effect was considered significant at a P value <.05.
Results
Within the SR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -6.79 [-8.94 to -4.65]; P < .001) and lower University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score (-3.21 [-5.27 to -1.15]; P = .002) but not higher pain (0.071 [-0.34 to 0.49]; P = .739).
Within the DR group, patients with a rotator cuff retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -9.35 [-12.2 to -6.50]; P < .001), lower American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (-12.1 [-17.1 to -7.26]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.07 [-4.85 to -1.29]; P < .001), higher pain (0.622 [0.19 to 1.05]; P = .005), and lower abduction strength ( P < .001).
In the AAR comparison, patients with a retear had a significantly lower Constant score (mean difference [95% CI], -7.56 [-9.55 to -5.57]; P < .001), lower ASES score (-10.1 [-15.5 to -4.64]; P < .001), lower UCLA score (-3.00 [-4.47 to -1.53]; P < .001), and lower abduction strength (in kg·f) (-3.32 [-4.53 to -2.12]; P < .001) but not higher pain (0.332 [-0.014 to 0.680]; P = .060).
Conclusions
Patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff retear exhibited significantly lower clinical outcome scores and strength compared with patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff.