Local Intraoperative Marrow-Derived Augmentation for Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies From 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND: Recurrent tears of the rotator cuff pose a substantial problem despite advances in repair technique. Biologic augmentation via marrow stimulation or vented anchors may strengthen the suture-tendon junction and improve healing rates of native tissue, thereby enhancing outcomes of primary surgical repair. PURPOSE: To provide a focused systematic review and meta-analysis of local, intraoperative marrow-derived augmentation techniques in clinical primary rotator cuff repair. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 2131 studies from 2010 to 2022, focused on either marrow stimulation or vented anchors, were isolated and classified as either preclinical or clinical. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative marrow stimulation and vented anchor studies. Heterogeneity was tested through calculation of I (2). RESULTS: A total of 13 clinical studies were included in the review. All 9 comparative studies included in the meta-analysis demonstrated high methodologic quality or a low risk of bias. The pooled retear rate across all 9 clinical studies for patients undergoing marrow stimulation was 11%. For the 5 studies in the meta-analysis, the pooled retear rates were 15% for marrow stimulation and 30% for controls. Meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the overall retear rate that favored marrow stimulation (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66; P = .0003; I (2) = 0%). Similarly, meta-analysis of the Constant score at final follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups that favored a higher Constant score in the marrow stimulation group (mean difference, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.02-4.66; P = .002; I (2) = 29%). Vented anchors demonstrated improved ossification and bone density at the anchor site, but no difference in outcomes or retear. Pooled retear rates were 22.5% for vented anchors and 27.8% for controls. CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates that marrow-stimulation techniques may have a positive impact on healing and retear rate, while vented anchors have a muted impact relative to nonvented anchors. Although available evidence is limited and more research is needed, findings to date suggest that marrow stimulation techniques may be an inexpensive, straightforward technique to consider in qualifying patients to prevent rotator cuff retears.