Knotted Versus Knotless Medial-Row Transosseous-Equivalent Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repairs Have Similar Clinical and Functional Outcomes

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.