Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Patients With Retear After Supraspinatus Tendon Repair and Those With Intact Repair at 5-Year Follow-up

Abstract

Background:

It is well known that rotator cuff repair is associated with an overall retear rate of 21% to 26%. However, a cuff retear may not necessarily be associated with poor clinical outcomes.

Hypothesis:

There would be no difference in clinical outcomes between patients with a cuff retear and those with an intact repair at a midterm follow-up of 5 years.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted involving patients who received arthroscopic complete repair of the supraspinatus tendon between January 2009 and December 2017. Patients who did not have a postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan or who had a follow-up of <5 years were excluded. Clinical outcomes, including the visual analog scale (VAS) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and active forward flexion (FF) of the involved shoulder were assessed at the 2-year and 5-year follow-up points.

Results:

The study group included 105 patients with a mean follow-up of 85 months. MRI scans were performed at a mean of 20 months. Fourteen full-thickness cuff retears and 91 intact repairs were identified using postoperative MRI scans. Significant improvement in VAS score, ASES score, and FF were found between the preoperative assessment and the 2 designated follow-up points (2 years and 5 years) in both the cuff retear and the intact repair groups (P < .001). The VAS and ASES scores at the 2-year follow-up for the intact repair group were 1.8 ± 2.0 and 80.7 ± 18.1, respectively. The corresponding values for the retear group were 2.3 ± 2.2 and 71.9 ± 19.5, respectively. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the VAS and ASES scores at the 2-year follow-up. However, patients with an intact repair had a better VAS score (1.4 ± 1.8; P = .049) and ASES score (81.7 ± 17; P = .019) than those with a cuff retear at the 5-year assessment (3.0 ± 2.8 and 67.1 ± 22.9, respectively). In the intact repair group, 91% of patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference for the 5-year VAS score, compared with 54% in the cuff retear group (P < .001). The corresponding values for the 5-year ASES score were 80% and 54%, respectively (P = .044). FF measurements at the 5-year follow-up in patients with intact repair and those with a cuff retear were 161°± 23° and 144°± 37°, respectively (P = .059). Continuous improvement in VAS score and FF between the 2-year and 5-year follow-up was observed in the intact repair group (P = .005 and P = .04, respectively).

Conclusion:

The patients with an intact repair had better VAS and ASES scores compared with those who had a cuff retear at a midterm follow-up of 5 years. Between the 2-year and the 5-year follow-up, some further improvement was observed in the VAS score and FF in the intact repair group.