Single-row, double-row, and transosseous equivalent techniques for isolated supraspinatus tendon tears with minimal atrophy: A retrospective comparative outcome and radiographic analysis at minimum 2-year followup

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the subjective, objective, and radiographic healing outcomes of single-row (SR), double-row (DR), and transosseous equivalent (TOE) suture techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs by one surgeon from 2004 to 2010 at minimum 2-year followup was performed. Cohorts were matched for age, sex, and tear size. Subjective outcome variables included ASES, Constant, SST, UCLA, and SF-12 scores. Objective outcome variables included strength, active range of motion (ROM). Radiographic healing was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann — Whitney and Kruskal — Wallis tests with significance, and the Fisher exact probability test <0.05. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients completed the study requirements (20 SR, 21 DR, 22 TOE). There was a clinically and statistically significant improvement in outcomes with all repair techniques (ASES mean improvement P = <0.0001). The mean final ASES scores were: SR 83; (SD 21.4); DR 87 (SD 18.2); TOE 87 (SD 13.2); (P = 0.73). There was a statistically significant improvement in strength for each repair technique (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between techniques across all secondary outcome assessments: ASES improvement, Constant, SST, UCLA, SF-12, ROM, Strength, and MRI re-tear rates. There was a decrease in re-tear rates from single row (22%) to double-row (18%) to transosseous equivalent (11%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to preoperatively, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, using SR, DR, or TOE techniques, yielded a clinically and statistically significant improvement in subjective and objective outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level 3.