Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Arthroscopic Superior Capsular Reconstruction Versus Primary Rotator Cuff Repair in Massive Rotator Cuff Tears: A Propensity Score–Matched Study

Abstract

Background:

Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction (aSCR) has emerged as a treatment option for managing massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) given the unpredictable results after an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). Yet, few comparative studies of aSCR and aRCR have been conducted.

Purpose:

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between aRCR and aSCR in patients with MRCT.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 163 cases of MRCT from 2010 to 2020 with follow-up ≥2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 102 had aRCR and 61 had aSCR using fascia lata autograft. Propensity score matching was used to select controls matched for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Constant score, pain visual analog scale (pVAS) score, range of motion (ROM), tear size, global fatty degeneration index, and acromiohumeral distance (AHD). Last, 33 cases in each group were selected after propensity score matching. Radiological assessment was conducted using serial postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Pre- and postoperative findings—including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, pVAS, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Constant scores and ROM—were assessed to compare clinical outcomes. For radiological outcomes, global fatty degeneration index, AHD, and healing rate were evaluated. Healing failure was defined as Sugaya classification IV or V in the aRCR group, as compared with a full-thickness tear of the graft in the aSCR group, which corresponded to Sugaya classification IV or V.

Results:

Postoperative clinical outcomes were significantly improved at the final follow-up in both groups. In the aSCR group, postoperative forward flexion, pVAS, and AHD were significantly improved as compared with the aRCR group (mean, 161° vs 148° [P = .02]; 1.03 vs 1.64 [P = .047]; 7.00 vs 5.23 mm [P < .001], respectively). The healing rate was 20 of 33 (60.6%) for aRCR and 29 of 33 (87.9%) for aSCR (P = .022).

Conclusion:

aSCR and aRCR are effective and reliable treatment options for MRCT. However, when compared with aRCR, aSCR showed improved clinical outcomes, including pVAS score, postoperative ROM, and favorable radiological findings, including AHD and a higher healing rate.