Background: It is undetermined which factors predict return to work after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Purpose: To identify which factors predicted return to work at any level and return to preinjury levels of work 6 months after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Multiple logistic regression analysis of prospectively collected descriptive, preinjury, preoperative, and intraoperative data from 1502 consecutive primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs, performed by a single surgeon, was performed to identify independent predictors of return to work at 6 months postoperatively. Results: Six months after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, 76% of patients had returned to work, and 40% had returned to preinjury levels of work. Return to work at 6 months was likely if patients were still working after their injuries but before surgery (Wald statistic [W] = 55, P < .0001), were stronger in internal rotation preoperatively (W = 8, P = .004), had full-thickness tears (W = 9, P = .002), and were female (W = 5, P = .030). Patients who continued working postinjury but presurgery were 1.6 times more likely to return to work at any level at 6 months compared to patients who were not working ( P < .0001). Patients who had a less strenuous preinjury level of work (W = 173, P < .0001), worked at a mild to moderate level post injury but presurgery, had greater preoperative behind-the-back lift-off strength (W = 8, P = .004), and had less preoperative passive external rotation range of motion (W = 5, P = .034) were more likely to return to preinjury levels of work at 6 months postoperatively. Specifically, patients who worked at a mild to moderate level postinjury but presurgery were 2.5 times more likely to return to work than patients who were not working, or who were working strenuously postinjury but presurgery ( p < 0.0001). Patients who nominated their preinjury level of work as “light” were 11 times more likely to return to preinjury levels of work at 6 months compared to those who nominated it as “strenuous” ( P < .0001). Conclusion: Six months after rotator cuff repair, patients who continued to work after injury but presurgery were the most likely to return to work at any level, and patients who had less strenuous preinjury levels of work were the most likely to return to their preinjury levels of work. Greater preoperative subscapularis strength independently predicted return to work at any level and to preinjury levels.

Background: Superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) is an option for the treatment of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. However, which materials yield the strongest constructs remains undetermined. Purposes: We sought to investigate whether SCR with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or human dermal allograft (HDA), 2 or 3 glenoid anchors, and suture or minitape resulted in better failure load properties at the patch-glenoid interface. Methods: We conducted a biomechanical study in 30 glenoid-sided SCR repairs in Sawbones models divided into 5 groups. Each was pulled to failure to assess mode of failure, peak load (N), stiffness (N/mm), yield load (N), peak energy (N m), and ultimate energy (N m). The 5 groups were as follows: group 1—PTFE, 2 anchors, and suture; group 2—PTFE, 2 anchors, and minitape; group 3—HDA, 2 anchors, and suture; group 4—HDA, 2 anchors, and minitape; group 5—PTFE, 3 anchors, and minitape. Results: Repairs failed by button-holing of suture/minitape. Group 5 had greater peak load, stiffness, yield load, and peak energy (384 ± 62 N; 24 ± 3 N/mm; 343 ± 42 N; 4 ± 2 N m) than group 3 (226 ± 67 N; 16 ± 4 N/mm; 194 ± 74 N; 2 ± 1 N m) or group 4 (274 ± 62 N; 17 ± 4 N/mm; 244 ± 50 N; 2 ± 1 N m) and greater ultimate energy (8 ± 3 N m) than all other groups. Conclusions: This biomechanical study of SCR repairs in Sawbones models found that yield load was greater in PTFE than HDA, 3 anchors were better than 2, and minitape was no better than suture.