The Clinical Results Of Arthroscopic Single-row And Suture Bridge Repair Technique For Rotator Cuff Tears

Objectives To compare the clinical effect of arthroscopic single-row(SR) and suture bridge(SB) technique in the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.Methods A retrospective analysis of 48 patients(25 males, 23 females; mean age 54.28 years) with full-thickness rotator cuff tears treated by arthroscopic single-row or suturebridge technique in Orthopaedic Hospital Affiliated to North China University of science and technology(The Second Hospital of Tangshan) between March 2011 and October 2013. The size of the tear were categorized into small(<1cm), medium(1 cm to 3 cm), large(3 cm to 5 cm) and massive(>5cm) tears according to the classification of De Orio and Cofield[1]. The same degree of rotator cuff tears were randomly divided into singlerow(SR) group(25 patients) and suture-bridge(SB) group(23 patients). Two groups respectively adopted corresponding operations. Record in details, and follow up shoulder joint pain, range of shoulder motion and muscle strength in the time of preoperation.The two techniques were compared in aspects of complications, re-tear rate by MRI, pre-and post-operative visual analogue score(VAS), University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Scores(UCLA), and Constant-Murley score.To each group of data, adopt SPSSl7.0 software and T tests of different treatment methods for the same tear classification in the same period to carry out statistical analysis comparison, marking measuring data as sx ±. P<0.05 was set as statistical significance when comparing the clinical difference of the two groups.Results The follow-up rate was 100%. Mean period of follow-up was 13.6 months(range, 9-17 months), Both treatment were effective in improving VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley, and the differences were significant(P<0.05). 1 In small rotator cuff tears, preoperative and postoperative VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley scores had no significant difference between the SR group and SB group, the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). 2 In medium rotator cuff tears, preoperative and postoperative VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley scores had no significant difference between the SR group and SB group, the difference was not statistically significant(P> 0.05). 3 In large rotator cuff tears, preoperative VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley scores had no significant difference between the SR group and SB group(P>0.05); Postoperative the SB group with VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley score than the SR group improved significantly(P<0.05). 4 In massive rotator cuff tears, preoperative VAS, UCLA, and Constant-Murley scores had no significant difference between the SR group and SB group(P>0.05); Postoperative the SB group with VAS, UCLA, and ConstantMurley score than the SR group improved significantly(P<0.05). From small to medium rotator cuff tears, there was no significant difference in re-tear rate between the two groups(P>0.05). From large to massive rotator cuff tears, there was significant difference in re-tear rate between the two groups(P>0.05), and Compared with SR group, SB group has obviously advantage.Conclusions Both treatments are effective for rotator cuff reconstruction. The clinical effect between SR group and SB group had no significant difference after arthroscopic repair in small and medium tears(P>0.05). The clinical effect in two groups were significant difference after arthroscopic repair in large and massive tears, and Compared with SR group, SB group has obviously advantage.