Outcomes of the Star Repair for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Modified Triple-Row Technique

Morsy, Mohamed G; Gawish, Hesham Mohamed; Galal, Mostafa Ashraf

doi:10.1177/2325967120952998

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, several triple‐row techniques have been documented to enhance the contact area and pressure within the cuff footprint. This is achieved by incorporating an additional middle‐row anchor to secure the leading edge of the cuff to the bone 34,35,40–43 . In contrast, en masse repair techniques disregard the multilayered structure of the rotator cuff and neglect to restore the native superior capsule and cuff insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Modified Arthroscopic Triple‐row Repair Technique for L‐shaped Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears

Fang,

Zhang,

Xiong

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of a modified arthroscopic triple‐row (TR) repair technique with the suture bridge (SB) repair technique in treating L‐shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears. Various surgical techniques for L‐shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears have been reported, many of which aid in increasing the contact area and pressure of the rotator cuff. However, there is still debate over which technique yields superior results.MethodsFrom January 2017 to March 2020, 61 cases of L‐shaped delaminated rotator cuff tears were included in this study. Of these, 34 cases underwent the modified arthroscopic triple‐row repair technique, while 27 cases were addressed with the suture bridge repair technique. Functional assessment was conducted using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, the Constant score (CS), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) assessments for rotator cuff healing were performed at the 24‐month postoperative mark. Statistical evaluations were conducted using SPSS for Windows (Version 25.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), employing the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test to compare preoperative and postoperative data and ROM differences, and the Mann–Whitney U test for statistical differences in clinical outcome scores between the two groups. A p‐value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsComparative analysis of the preoperative and final follow‐up scores revealed a substantial enhancement in shoulder function, as indicated by the ASES, UCLA, CS, and VAS scores, with statistical significance (p < 0.001). At both the preoperative stage and final follow‐up, no notable differences were observed in ASES, UCLA, CS, and VAS scores between the two groups. However, the TR repair group exhibited lower VAS scores than the SB group at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Active range of motion (ROM) showed significant improvement in both groups. No significant differences in ROM were noted between the two groups either before the surgery or at the final follow‐up.ConclusionThe study demonstrates that both the modified arthroscopic TR and SB techniques for L‐shaped delaminated cuff tears yield satisfactory outcomes, with no significant differences in overall clinical performance. Notably, early postoperative pain management appears more effective with the modified TR technique, suggesting its potential for enhanced early recovery experiences. This technique's design, promoting securer fixation and optimal contact conditions, is implied to facilitate superior long‐term healing, warranting further investigation into its long‐term benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is achieved by incorporating an additional middle‐row anchor to secure the leading edge of the cuff to the bone. 34 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 In contrast, en masse repair techniques disregard the multilayered structure of the rotator cuff and neglect to restore the native superior capsule and cuff insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Modified Arthroscopic Triple‐row Repair Technique for L‐shaped Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears

Fang,

Zhang,

Xiong

et al. 2024

Orthopaedic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further analysis revealed that acromioplasty was more common in patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery, suggesting its wide use in diverse shoulder tear cases [ 14 ]. The adaptability in managing extensive acromioplasty, despite possibly increasing short-term postoperative pain, may lead to better long-term outcomes [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Outcomes between Open and Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Menekse

2024

Advances in Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The objective of this retrospective cohort study is to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of two surgical techniques for rotator cuff repair, namely, open and arthroscopic methods. Methods. A total of 100 patients diagnosed with rotator cuff tears and treated at Seyhan State Hospital in the past five years were enrolled, considering the same inclusion criteria for both groups. The study groups consisted of 50 patients who underwent open rotator cuff repair and 50 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We used the SPSS programme to analyse the data, focusing on parameters such as postoperative recovery time, functional capacity scores, pain levels measured by the VAS scale, quality of life evaluated by the SF-36 scores, and complication rates. Results. Both methods resulted in similar recovery times and functional capacity scores, but patients treated with the open method reported slightly lower pain levels (average VAS score: 2.8) compared to those treated with the arthroscopic method (average VAS score: 3.1). The study also found slightly better quality of life scores in the arthroscopic group (average SF-36 score: 71.4) compared to the open surgery group (average SF-36 score: 68.7). The complications rates were lower in the arthroscopic group (2%) than in the open surgery group (4%), but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions. The study suggests that, while there are no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes between the two surgical methods, short-term pain levels may be influenced by the more frequent application of acromioplasty in arthroscopic methods. Therefore, the choice of the surgical method should be made based on the unique characteristics, including the location and size, the patient’s overall health status, and the surgeon’s experience. These findings should be used as a guide and not as absolute results.

show abstract

Clinical outcome and repair integrity after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Triple-row versus suture-bridge techniques

Kajita

Iwahori

Harada

et al. 2023

Journal of Orthopaedic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Outcomes of the Star Repair for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Modified Triple-Row Technique

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

A Modified Arthroscopic Triple‐row Repair Technique for L‐shaped Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears

A Modified Arthroscopic Triple‐row Repair Technique for L‐shaped Delaminated Rotator Cuff Tears

Comparison of Outcomes between Open and Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Clinical outcome and repair integrity after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Triple-row versus suture-bridge techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About