Results of Arthroscopic Revision Rotator Cuff Repair for Failed Open or Arthroscopic Repair: A Prospective Multicenter Study on 100 Cases.

BACKGROUND

Retears after rotator cuff repair (RCR) have been associated with poor clinical results. Meaningful data regarding the role of arthroscopic revision RCR are sparse thus far.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate results after arthroscopic revision RCR. We hypothesized that (1) arthroscopic revision RCR would lead to improved outcomes, (2) the clinical results would be dependent on tendon integrity and (3) tear pattern, tendon involvement, and repair technique would influence clinical and structural results.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence 4.

METHODS

During a 40-month period, 100 patients who underwent arthroscopic revision RCR were prospectively enrolled in this multicenter study. Outcomes were evaluated preoperatively, at 6 months (6M), and at 24 months (24M) using the Constant score (CS), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Tendon integrity at 2 years was analyzed using magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 13 patients (13%) were lost to follow-up, and 14 patients (14%) had a symptomatic retear before the 24M follow-up.

RESULTS

All clinical scores improved significantly during the study period (CS: preoperative, 44 ± 16; 6M, 58 ± 22; 24M, 69 ± 19 points; OSS: preoperative, 27 ± 8; 6M, 36 ± 11; 24M, 40 ± 9 points; SSV: preoperative, 43% ± 18%; 6M, 66% ± 24%; 24M, 75% ± 22%) (

CONCLUSION

Although arthroscopic revision RCR improved shoulder function, retears were frequent but usually smaller. Patients with retears, however, did not necessarily have poorer shoulder function. Patient satisfaction at 2 years was lower when primary open RCR was performed, when a subscapularis tear or osteoarthritis was present, and when the rotator cuff retear was located at the musculotendinous junction. Patients with traumatic retears showed better functional improvement after revision.