Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Shyam Sundar, Rohit Mahesh Sane, Raghulraj Sundaramoorthy, Munis Ashraf, David V Rajan
{"title":"Evaluating transosseous anchorless repair for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: a comparative study with double row anchor repair.","authors":"Shyam Sundar, Rohit Mahesh Sane, Raghulraj Sundaramoorthy, Munis Ashraf, David V Rajan","doi":"10.5397/cise.2024.00556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This retrospective observational study compared outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery using double row anchor repair (DRR) versus transosseous anchorless repair (TAR) in patients with small to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 42 patients underwent DRR (n=20) or TAR (n=22) between January 2022 and May 2023. Patients were matched based on age, sex, body mass index, and tear severity. Baseline demographics, including diabetes, smoking status, and Cofield classification, were compared. Functional outcomes were assessed using University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, along with range of motion (ROM) parameters: forward flexion (FF), extension (EXT), internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), and abduction (AB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P>0.05). TAR showed higher UCLA scores at 3 and 6 months (P<0.001) and superior ASES scores at 3 (P=0.025) and 6 months (P<0.001) compared to DRR. By 1 year, no significant differences were observed in UCLA (P=0.101), ASES (P=0.051), or ROM parameters (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both DRR and TAR showed comparable outcomes at 1 year. However, TAR demonstrated early functional benefits at 3 and 6 months, indicating potential advantages in the initial recovery phase. Level of evidence: III.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2024.00556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This retrospective observational study compared outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery using double row anchor repair (DRR) versus transosseous anchorless repair (TAR) in patients with small to large full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

Methods: A total of 42 patients underwent DRR (n=20) or TAR (n=22) between January 2022 and May 2023. Patients were matched based on age, sex, body mass index, and tear severity. Baseline demographics, including diabetes, smoking status, and Cofield classification, were compared. Functional outcomes were assessed using University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, along with range of motion (ROM) parameters: forward flexion (FF), extension (EXT), internal rotation (IR), external rotation (ER), and abduction (AB).

Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P>0.05). TAR showed higher UCLA scores at 3 and 6 months (P<0.001) and superior ASES scores at 3 (P=0.025) and 6 months (P<0.001) compared to DRR. By 1 year, no significant differences were observed in UCLA (P=0.101), ASES (P=0.051), or ROM parameters (P>0.05).

Conclusion: Both DRR and TAR showed comparable outcomes at 1 year. However, TAR demonstrated early functional benefits at 3 and 6 months, indicating potential advantages in the initial recovery phase. Level of evidence: III.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信