Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) with suture anchor–based fixation techniques has replaced former open and mini-open approaches. Nevertheless, long-term studies are scarce, and lack of knowledge exists about whether single-row (SR) or double-row (DR) methods are superior in clinical and anatomic results. Purpose: To analyze long-term results after arthroscopic RCR in patients with symptomatic rotator cuff tears and to compare functional and radiographic outcomes between SR and DR repair techniques at least 10 years after surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between 2005 and 2006, 40 patients with a symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear (supraspinatus tendon tear with or without a tear of the infraspinatus tendon) underwent arthroscopic RCR with either an SR repair with a modified Mason-Allen suture–grasping technique (n = 20) or a DR repair with a suture bridge fixation technique (n = 20). All patients were enrolled in a long-term clinical evaluation, with the Constant score (CS) as the primary outcome measure. Furthermore, an ultrasound examination was performed to assess tendon integrity and conventional radiographs to evaluate secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Results: A total of 27 patients, of whom 16 were treated with an SR repair and 11 with a DR repair, were followed up after a mean ± SD period of 12 ± 1 years (range, 11-14 years). Five patients underwent revision surgery on the affected shoulder during follow-up period, which led to 22 patients being included. The overall CS remained stable at final follow-up when compared with short-term follow-up (81 ± 8 vs 83 ± 19 points; P = .600). An increasing number of full-thickness retears were found: 6 of 22 (27%) at 2 years and 9 of 20 (45%) at 12 years after surgery. While repair failure negatively affected clinical results as shown by the CS ( P < .05), no significant difference was found between the fixation techniques ( P = .456). In general, progressive osteoarthritic changes were observed, with tendon integrity as a key determinant. Conclusion: Arthroscopic RCR with either an SR or a DR fixation technique provided good clinical long-term results. Repair failure was high, with negative effects on clinical results and the progression of secondary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. While DR repair slightly enhanced tendon integrity at long-term follow-up, no clinical superiority to SR repair was found.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the anatomical feasibility of a middle trapezius transfer below the acromion for treatment of irreparable supraspinatus tendon tears. Methods This study involved 20 human cadaveric shoulders in 10 full-body specimens. One shoulder in each specimen was dissected and assessed for muscle and tendon extent, force vectors, and distance to the neurovascular structures. The opposite shoulder was used to evaluate the surgical feasibility of the middle trapezius transfer via limited skin incisions along with an assessment of range of motion and risk of neurovascular injury following transfer. Results The harvested acromial insertion of the middle trapezius tendon showed an average muscle length of 11.7 ± 3.0 cm, tendon length of 2.7 ± 0.9 cm, footprint length of 4.3 ± 0.7 cm and footprint width of 1.4 ± 0.5 cm. The average angle between the non-transferred middle trapezius transfer and the supraspinatus was 33 ± 10° in the transversal plane and 34 ± 14° in the coronal plane. The mean distance from the acromion to the neurovascular bundle was 6.3 ± 1.3 cm (minimum: 4.0 cm). During surgical simulation there was sufficient excursion of the MTT without limitation of range of motion in a retracted scapular position but not in a protracted position. No injuries to the neurovascular structures were noted. Conclusion Transfer of the acromial portion of the middle trapezius for replacement of an irreparable supraspinatus seems to be feasible in terms of size, vector, excursion, mobility and safety. However, some concern regarding sufficiency of transfer excursion remains as scapula protraction can increase the pathway length of the transfer. Level of evidence Basic Science Study/Anatomical Study

Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) has shown similar midterm functional results and retear rates as open/mini-open rotator cuff repair (oRCR). A pooled analysis of long-term results of both techniques is yet missing. Purpose: To evaluate the long-term results of aRCR and oRCR for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The CENTRAL (Cochrane), MEDLINE (PubMed), and Embase databases were searched for studies that reported on long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of full-thickness aRCR and oRCR with a minimum follow-up of 9 years. Results: Eleven studies were included: 5 studies on aRCR and 6 studies on oRCR. Studies were based on 550 shoulders (539 patients) with a mean patient age of 56.3 years (range, 25-77). After a mean follow-up of 14.0 years (range, 9-20), the mean preoperative absolute Constant score (CS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score were significantly improved postoperatively (CS, 44 to 78 points; ASES, 52% to 91%; both comparisons, P < .001). The retear rate was 41% (141 of 342 shoulders) without a significant difference between groups (aRCR, 43%; oRCR, 39%) ( P = .364). A retear was associated with significantly reduced CS as compared with a healed repair ( P = .004). No significant differences were found in postoperative functional scores, complications, and retear rates after failed cuff repairs between the arthroscopic and open/mini-open repair groups. Conclusion: Pooled analysis of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repairs demonstrated sustained improvement in long-term shoulder scores and pain with a substantial retear rate in both groups, which was associated with inferior shoulder function. There were no significant differences in long-term functional outcomes, retear rates, and complications. Both surgical techniques may be used on the basis of factors such as patient or surgeon preference and cost. Further studies using a more robust randomized controlled trial or larger cohort design are recommended to ascertain whether one surgical repair technique is superior to the other. Registration: CRD42020180448 (PROSPERO).

No abstract

Introduction The patient’s perspective plays a key role in judging the effect of knee disorders on physical function. We have introduced the Subjective Knee Value (SKV) to simplify the evaluation of individual’s knee function by providing one simple question. The purpose of this prospective study was to validate the SKV with accepted multiple-item knee surveys across patients with orthopaedic knee disorders. Materials and methods Between January through March 2020, consecutive patients (n = 160; mean age 51 ± 18 years, range from 18 to 85 years, 54% women) attending the outpatient clinic for knee complaints caused by osteoarthritis (n = 69), meniscal lesion (n = 45), tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (n = 23) and focal chondral defect (n = 23) were invited to complete a knee-specific survey including the SKV along with the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form (IKDC-S). The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate external validity between the SKV and each patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) separately. Furthermore, patient’s compliance was assessed by comparing responding rates. Results Overall, the SKV highly correlated with both the KOOS (R = 0.758, p < 0.05) and the IKDC-S (R = 0.802, p < 0.05). This was also demonstrated across all investigated diagnosis- and demographic-specific (gender, age) subgroups (range 0.509–0.936). No relevant floor/ceiling effects were noticed. The responding rate for the SKV (96%) was significantly higher when compared with those for the KOOS (81%) and the IKDC-S (83%) (p < 0.05). Conclusion At baseline, the SKV exhibits acceptable validity across all investigated knee-specific PROMs in a broad patient population with a wide array of knee disorders. The simplified survey format without compromising the precision to evaluate individual’s knee function justifies implementation in daily clinical practice. Level of evidence II, cohort study (diagnosis).