0
    818
    views

    Current Controversies in the Management of Symptomatic Rotator Cuff Tears

    The authors review the pros and cons of conservative and surgical treatment options.

    Authors

    Burak Altintas, MD; Jonathan A. Godin, MD, MBA; Erik M. Fritz, MD; Zaamin B. Hussain, BS; Matthew T. Provencher, MD, CAPT, MC, USNR; and Peter J. Millett, MD, MSc 

    Introduction

    Rotator cuff tears are a common source of shoulder pain, typically affecting older patients but occurring in patients of all ages. [1,2] If these tears are not managed appropriately, short- and long-term disability can result. Multiple extrinsic and intrinsic factors can contribute to tear formation: [3]

    • Extrinsic factors
      • Acromial morphology
      • Spurs
    • Intrinsic factors
      • Tensile overload
      • Aging
      • Microvascular supply
      • Trauma
      • Degeneration

    Despite the high prevalence of rotator cuff pathology and a dramatic increase in the number of scientific publications about it each year, the optimal management remains controversial in some instances. [4,5] The purpose of this article is to elucidate the conservative and operative treatment options for symptomatic rotator cuff tears.

    Conservative Treatment for Symptomatic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears

    Radiologic failure rates following rotator cuff repair have been reported as high as 90% with some older repair methods. [6,7] For that reason, non-operative treatment might appear be a reasonable alternative to operative management. In fact, a systematic review by Slabaugh et al. [8] could not definitively conclude, based on clinical outcomes, that operative repair was better than non-operative treatment.

    Although studies with short-term follow-up have shown favorable results with non-operative management, longer follow-up of patients treated conservatively demonstrated inferior results compared with surgery. [9-12] This might be attributed to tear progression, with increased pain and decreased function due to disruption of the biomechanical force couples that stabilize the shoulder. [13,14]

    For example, in a recent randomized, controlled study by Moosmayer et al., [12] 24% of patients with a full-thickness tear failed non-operative treatment with physiotherapy within the first 2 years and underwent surgical repair. Moreover, the decision to proceed with conservative treatment should be made judiciously in patients with acute rotator cuff tears or rapid tear progression.

    The evidence for specific treatment protocols for the non-operative management of rotator cuff tears is limited. [6,15-17] Although nearly all patients with symptomatic tears report pain, weakness may vary and likely depends on tear size and the effectiveness of adaptive compensation. [18] Non-operative treatment usually includes oral anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents, as well as injected corticosteroids, to treat the pain. [19] This is combined with physical therapy that includes strengthening and stretching exercises aimed at balancing various force couples, increasing range of motion, and addressing possible concomitant scapulothoracic dyskinesis.

    Although most studies on conservative treatment have shown an overall success rate of around 75%, the majority of them have also reported progression of tear size and fatty muscle infiltration over time. [6] It is important, therefore, to identify which patients will benefit most from a conservative treatment strategy. For example, low-demand, older patients with chronic attritional tears may be more suited to this approach, while younger, more active patients with acute traumatic tears may be better treated with surgical rotator cuff repair.

    Tanaka et al. [20] identified several positive predictive factors for successful conservative treatment:

    • Integrity of the intramuscular tendon of the supraspinatus
    • No supraspinatus muscle atrophy
    • Negative impingement sign
    • Sufficient external rotation

    Patients with a non-operatively managed, moderately symptomatic massive rotator cuff tear can maintain satisfactory shoulder function for at least 4 years despite significant progression of degenerative structural joint changes; however, there is a risk of a reparable tear progressing to an irreparable tear within 4 years. [21] In a prospective study by Keener et al. [22], 46% of the patients with an asymptomatic rotator cuff tear developed new pain, while 49% showed tear enlargement at a median of 2.8 years.

    Millett et al. [23] analyzed 3-dimensional glenohumeral translation using biplane fluoroscopy and demonstrated that patients with well-compensated single- or 2-tendon rotator cuff tears showed an inferior shift during active elevation as a possible sign of initial instability. The senior author of this article prefers arthroscopic repair of reparable (Goutallier < stage 4) symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears in active patients. This is due to the risk of tear progression with functional impairment, as well as progressive atrophy, fatty infiltration of the muscle, tendon loss, and tendon retraction that leads to irreparability and arthropathy. [21,22]

    Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears

    Surgical repair of rotator cuff tears has shown good to excellent outcomes, with significant pain reduction, enhanced muscle strength, and increased function regardless of the operative method. [24-29] Muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration are thought to be permanent and irreversible, although a recent study suggested that these factors may improve after surgical rotator cuff repair. [30] Even on long-term follow-up, surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tendon tears can produce consistent and lasting pain relief, as well as improvement in range of motion. [28]

    There are 3 options for surgical treatment:

    • Open
    • Mini-open
    • Arthroscopic

    The open approach has shown good to excellent middle- to long-term clinical outcomes, [27,29] although it is no longer widely utilized. Less-invasive techniques are now being used, obviating the need for detachment of the deltoid muscle that places the muscle at risk for subsequent insufficiency and also poses a higher risk of infection when compared with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. [31,32]

    The mini-open approach minimizes the iatrogenic injury to the deltoid muscle. A concomitant arthroscopy is often needed for adequate assessment and treatment of other structures, such as the labrum, the cartilage, the long head of the biceps, and the subscapularis tendon, that are not easily accessible through the limited approach. Some studies have shown a higher risk of complications with the mini-open repair, including revision, arthrofibrosis, and postoperative impingement. [33-35] A recent study by Baker et al. [36] showed that despite low morbidity with arthroscopic and open repairs, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was associated with lower risks of adverse events and lower rates of re-operation during the initial 30-day postoperative period.

    Arthroscopic repair is now considered the preferred treatment strategy for rotator cuff repair. Although arthroscopic repair has numerous advantages, increased cost has been a concern, as several studies have reported that open cuff repair is more cost-effective than arthroscopic repair. [37,38] However, a recent study reported no significant overall difference in the use or cost of resources or quality of life between arthroscopic and open management. [39] Dornan et al. [40] recently showed that primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was the most cost-effective initial surgical treatment strategy for patients of all ages with massive rotator cuff tears and non-arthritic shoulders.

    Arthroscopic repairs are less invasive and pose less risk of infection and deltoid injury. The use of modern arthroscopic techniques results in excellent outcomes with a low risk of re-tear. Moreover, compared with the open approach, arthroscopic repairs have shown better outcomes. A recent study, for example, showed significantly higher ASES scores and lower re-tear rates at 6 and 24 months postoperatively with  arthroscopic repair. [25] Colegate-Stone et al. [41] demonstrated better DASH, Constant, and Oxford Shoulder Scores at every time point for patients who underwent arthroscopy versus those who underwent a mini-open procedure. In addition, arthroscopic repair involves less pain than open repair and allows for earlier functional recovery, a shorter operative time, and better repair integrity. [35]

    There are, however, some studies that support mini-open repair. Fink et al. [42] showed that the integrity of the rotator cuff repair and function of the shoulder were better after a mini-open repair than after arthroscopic repair. [42] Other studies have not been able to detect differences in effectiveness between open and arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. [29,33,43]

    In either case, as stated by Dugas et al., [44] an understanding of the rotator cuff insertional anatomy is crucial for better restoration of function to the rotator cuff and, ultimately, a successful repair. In the authors’ opinion, it is easier to perform an anatomic repair with good reduction of the torn rotator cuff to the footprint without tension by using modern arthroscopic techniques. The senior author of this article prefers arthroscopic treatment because it allows for better assessment, enhanced visualization, and more effective repair with less pain, better cosmetic outcomes, improved functional outcomes, and fewer complications.

    Single-Row Versus Double-Row Fixation

    With the increasing number of techniques available for the repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, a double-row repair was proposed to more effectively restore the anatomy. The clinical superiority of double-row repairs is becoming clearer, with better anatomic restoration of the tendon, stronger repairs, early recoveries, and lower re-tear rates (Figure 1). [45]

    Figure 1. Arthroscopic view of a left shoulder through the lateral portal. Note the final construct after knotless double-row repair.

    The anatomic, double-row repair has become popular because of better biomechanical characteristics such as improved footprint coverage, [46-48] initial strength, and stiffness, as well as decreased gap formation and strain over the footprint when compared with a single-row repair. [49] In vivo studies in an acute repair sheep model have confirmed that double-row repair may enhance the speed of mechanical recovery of the tendon-bone complex when compared with single-row repair in the early postoperative period. [50,51] We have also seen this in our clinical practice.

    Over time, the double-row repair has evolved into a transosseous-equivalent, interconnected technique with knotless systems to enhance biologic healing and to maximize reinforcement. Mook et al. [52] described the technical aspects of an anatomic, linked, self-reinforcing rotator cuff repair. At short-term follow-up, Vaishnav et al. [53] showed significant improvements in pain levels and postoperative outcomes scores, as well as high patient satisfaction with quick return to full activities, in 22 patients undergoing a primary rotator cuff repair with this technique. In a larger cohort of 102 patients, Millett et al. [54] reported excellent outcomes of this technique after a minimum 2-year follow-up.

    Bhatia et al. [55] showed that the double-row technique is highly effective at reducing pain, improving function, and returning patients to sport even in recreational athletes age 70 and older. Another study by Ames et al. [56] noted excellent clinical outcomes following anatomic double-row rotator cuff repair. They also found that a larger acromial index was slightly associated with the ultimate clinical outcome, suggesting that the biomechanics of the patient’s anatomy may influence the result. [56] Greenspoon et al. [57] showed that this technique can even be used for massive rotator cuff repairs by using an extended linked double-row repair construct. The biomechanical properties of this construct were studied by van der Meijden et al., [58] who showed superior results for double-row compared with single-row constructs for 2-tendon tear repairs.

    Park et al [59] could demonstrate that knotless transosseous-equivalent repair shows an improved self-reinforcement effect, without diminishing footprint contact, compared with the same repair with medial knots. Moreover, a recent study be Huang et al [60] showed the double-row fixation to be more cost-effective than single-row fixation. Furthermore, a double-row reconstruction was found to be more economically attractive for larger rotator cuff tears. [60]

    Various clinical studies have shown superior structural outcomes with double-row repair for different tear sizes. [61-64] Other studies have demonstrated that double-row repairs result in superior structural healing with significantly lower re-tear rates, especially with regard to partial-thickness re-tears. However, with short term follow-up, no detectable differences were seen in improvement in clinical outcomes scores between single-row and double-row repairs. [65-68] Other studies could not detect any clinical or MRI differences between the 2 techniques, although the sample sizes of these studies may have been inadequate. [69-71]

    Current evidence suggests that patients with full-thickness rotator cuff re-tears have significantly lower clinical outcome scores and strength compared with patients with an intact or partially torn rotator cuff tendons. [72] Given these findings, along with the lower re-tear rates of the double-row repair, our preferred method is the anatomic double-row repair. [73] In addition, this method allows for accelerated postoperative rehabilitation, especially in patients with a high risk of shoulder stiffness. [74]

    Summary

    Arthroscopic surgical treatment is the preferred treatment strategy for most patients who present with symptomatic rotator cuff tears. Conservative treatment may be reasonable for patients with small tears without fatty degeneration and retraction, as well as older adult patients with more limited functional expectations after a detailed discussion of the risks regarding tear progression, tissue degeneration, and symptoms worsening over time. In most instances, in our opinion, primary rotator cuff repair should be considered. Although arthroscopic treatment is the preferred treatment strategy at the present time, a mini-open repair with prior diagnostic arthroscopy or an open rotator cuff repair can be regarded as reasonable alternatives.

    Key Points and Pearls

    • Consider conservative treatment for patients with small tears without fatty degeneration and retraction, as well as older patients with limited functional expectations.
    • Consider anatomic, double-row repair for patients with symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears larger than 1 cm or if conservative treatment fails.
    • For operative management, place the patient in the beach-chair position with a pneumatic arm holder or in the lateral decubitus position with traction.
    • Use at least 4 portals (posterior, anterosuperior, anterolateral, posterolateral) for adequate visualization and instrumentation. An additional lateral portal may be created if necessary (Figure 2).
    • Perform a subacromial bursectomy and decompression.
    • Prepare the footprint, including microfracture, until there is sufficient bleeding from the bone.
    • Recognize the tear pattern (crescent, L-shape, U-shape, massive a.o.) and plan the repair accordingly (Figure 3).
    • Perform releases of the rotator cuff for better mobilization and reduction to the footprint (Figure 4).
    • Begin with margin convergence if needed.
    • Place medial anchors just lateral to the articular margin and keep a distance of 1.5-2 cm between medial anchors (Figure 5).
    • Place lateral anchors approximately 5-10 mm lateral to the edge of the greater tuberosity and pay attention to the tendon tension (Figure 6).
    • Don’t forget that a good mini-open repair is better than a bad arthroscopic one, so don’t hesitate to convert.

    Figure 2. View of a left shoulder in the beach chair position with the portals drawn out (circles). Beginning from the left and going counter-clockwise are the anterosuperior, anterolateral, posterolateral, and posterior portals. The arrow designates the appropriate location of the lateral portal (not drawn here).

     

    Figure 3. Arthroscopic view of a left shoulder through the lateral portal visualizing a complex delaminated full-thickness rotator cuff tear (GT = Greater tuberosity, RC = Rotator cuff).

     

    Figure 4. Arthroscopic view of a left shoulder through the lateral portal. An arthroscopic grasper (arrow) is used to mobilize the rotator cuff for correct suture passage via the anterolateral portal (GT = Greater tuberosity, RC = Rotator cuff).

     

    Figure 5. Arthroscopic view of a left shoulder through the lateral portal. The medial row anchor (arrow) is placed, via the anterolateral portal (GT = Greater tuberosity, RC = Rotator cuff).

     

    Figure 6. Arthroscopic view of a left shoulder through the posterolateral portal. Via the anterolateral portal, the first lateral row anchor (arrow) is placed. The sutures from the medial row anchors have been loaded onto the lateral anchor and the rotator cuff is pulled to appropriate tension while the anchor is inserted (GT = Greater tuberosity).

    Author Information

    Burak Altintas, MD; Erik M. Fritz, MD; and Zaamin B. Hussain, BS, are from the Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado. Jonathan A. Godin, MD, MBA; Matthew T. Provencher, MD, CAPT, MC, USNR; and Peter J. Millett, MD, MSc, are with the Steadman Phillippon Research Institute and The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado.

    Disclosures

    Dr. Altintas has disclosed that his position in the Steadman Philippon Research Institute is supported by Arthrex. Dr. Fritz and Mr. Hussain have disclosed that they are employees of the Steadman Philippon Research Institute, which receives funding from Smith & Nephew, Arthrex, Siemens, and Össur. Dr. Provencher has disclosed that he is a consultant for Arthrex and JRF Ortho; has patents issued: 9226743, 20150164498, 20150150594, 20110040339; and receives royalties from Arthrex and SLACK. Dr. Millett has disclosed that he receives consultant’s fees and royalties from Arthrex, Medbridge, and Springer Publishing; is a partner of The Steadman Clinic; owns stocks and stock options in GameReady and VuMedi; and receives financial support for a part of his research from Arthrex. Dr. Godin has no disclosures relevant to this article.

    References

    1. Yamaguchi K, Ditsios K, Middleton WD, Hildebolt CF, Galatz LM, Teefey SA. The Demographic and Morphological Features of Rotator Cuff Disease. A Comparison of Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Shoulders. J. Bone Jt. Surg. – Am. Vol. 2006;88(8):1699-1704. doi:10.2106/jbjs.e.00835.
    2. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2010;19(1):116-120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.006.
    3. Maffulli N, Longo UG, Berton A, Loppini M, Denaro V. Biological Factors in the Pathogenesis of Rotator Cuff Tears. Sports Med. Arthrosc. 2011;19(3):194-201. doi:10.1097/JSA.0b013e3182250cad.
    4. McElvany MD, McGoldrick E, Gee AO, Neradilek MB, Matsen FA. Rotator Cuff Repair: Published Evidence on Factors Associated With Repair Integrity and Clinical Outcome. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014;43(2):491-500. doi:10.1177/0363546514529644.
    5. Dunn WR, Schackman BR, Walsh C, et al. Variation in orthopaedic surgeons’ perceptions about the indications for rotator cuff surgery. J. Bone Jt. Surg. – Am. Vol. 2005;87(9):1978-1984. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02944.
    6. Petri M, Ettinger M, Brand S, Stuebig T, Krettek C, Omar M. Non-Operative Management of Rotator Cuff Tears. Open Orthop. J. 2016;10(Suppl 1: M11):349-356. doi:10.2174/1874325001610010349.
    7. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, et al. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2004;86-A(2):219-24. doi:10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80293-2.
    8. Slabaugh MA, Nho SJ, Grumet RC, et al. Does the Literature Confirm Superior Clinical Results in Radiographically Healed Rotator Cuffs After Rotator Cuff Repair? Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2010;26(3):393-403. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.023.
    9. Fucentese SF, von Roll AL, Pfirrman CWA, Gerber C, Jost BM. Evolution of Nonoperatively Treated Symptomatic Isolated Full-Thickness Supraspinatus Tears. J. Bone Jt. Surg. – Am. Vol. 2012;94(9):801. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01286.
    10. Kukkonen J, Joukainen A, Lehtinen J, et al. Treatment of Nontraumatic Rotator Cuff Tears. J. Bone Jt. Surgery- Am. Vol. 2015;97(21):1729-1737. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.01051.
    11. Boorman RS, More KD, Hollinshead RM, et al. The Rotator Cuff Quality-of-Life Index Predicts the Outcome of Nonoperative Treatment of Patients with a Chronic Rotator Cuff Tear. J. Bone Jt. Surgery-American Vol. 2014;96(22):1883-1888. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01457.
    12. Moosmayer S, Lund G, Seljom US, et al. Tendon Repair Compared with Physiotherapy in the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears: A Randomized Controlled Study in 103 Cases with a Five-Year Follow-up. J. Bone Jt. Surgery- Am. Vol. 2014;96(18):1504-1514. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01393.
    13. Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Current Concepts in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003;31(2):308-324.
    14. Yamaguchi K, Tetro AM, Blam O, Evanoff BA, Teefey SA, Middleton WD. Natural history of asymptomatic rotator cuff tears: A longitudinal analysis of asymptomatic tears detected sonographically. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2001;10(3):199-203. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113086.
    15. Kuhn JE, Dunn WR, Sanders R, et al. Effectiveness of physical therapy in treating atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears: A multicenter prospective cohort study. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2013;22(10):1371-1379. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.026.
    16. Millett PJ, Wilcox RB, O’Holleran JD, Warner JJP. Rehabilitation of the rotator cuff: an evaluation-based approach. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2006;14(11):599-609.
    17. van der Meijden OA, Westgard P, Chandler Z, Gaskill TR, Kokmeyer D, Millett PJ. Rehabilitation after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: current concepts review and evidence-based guidelines. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2012;7(2):197-218.
    18. Itoi E. Rotator cuff tear: Physical examination and conservative treatment. J. Orthop. Sci. 2013;18(2):197-204. doi:10.1007/s00776-012-0345-2.
    19. Lorbach O. Kontroversen in der Behandlung von Rupturen der Rotatorenmanschette: Konservativ oder operativ, offen oder arthroskopisch? Orthopade 2016;45(2):112-117. doi:10.1007/s00132-015-3212-y.
    20. Tanaka M, Itoi E, Sato K, et al. Factors related to successful outcome of conservative treatment for rotator cuff tears. Ups. J. Med. Sci. 2010;115(3):193-200. doi:10.3109/03009734.2010.493246.
    21. Zingg PO, Jost B, Sukthankar A, Buhler M, Pfirrmann CWA, Gerber C. Clinical and structural outcomes of nonoperative management of massive rotator cuff tears. J. Bone Jt. Surgery- Am. Vol. 2007;89(9):1928-34. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01073.
    22. Keener JD, Galatz LM, Teefey SA, et al. A Prospective Evaluation of Survivorship of Asymptomatic Degenerative Rotator Cuff Tears. J. Bone Jt. Surgery- Am. Vol. 2015;97(2):89-98. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00099.
    23. Millett PJ, Giphart JE, Wilson KJ, Kagnes K, Greenspoon JA. Alterations in Glenohumeral Kinematics in Patients with Rotator Cuff Tears Measured with Biplane Fluoroscopy. Arthroscopy 2016;32(3):446-451. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2015.08.031.
    24. Collin P, Mole D, Meyer N, Agout C. Ten-Year Multicenter Clinical and MRI Evaluation of Isolated Supraspinatus Repairs. J. Bone Jt. Surg. – Am. Vol. 2017;99(16):1355-1364. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.01267.
    25. Millar NL, Wu X, Tantau R, Silverstone E, Murrell GAC. Open versus two forms of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009;467(4):966-978. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0706-0.
    26. Millett PJ, Horan MP, Maland KE, Hawkins RJ. Long-term survivorship and outcomes after surgical repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2011;20(4):591-597. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.019.
    27. Gazielly DF, Gleyze P, Montagnon C. Functional and Anatomical Results After Rotator Cuff Repair. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1994;(304):43-53. doi:10.1097/00003086-199407000-00009.
    28. Elia F, Azoulay V, Lebon J, Faraud A, Bonnevialle N, Mansat P. Clinical and anatomic results of surgical repair of chronic rotator cuff tears at ten-year minimum follow-up. Int. Orthop. 2017;41(6):1219-1226. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3456-8.
    29. Ide J, Maeda S, Takagi K. A Comparison of Arthroscopic and Open Rotator Cuff Repair. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2005;21(9):1090-1098. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.05.010.
    30. Hamano N, Yamamoto A, Kobayashi T, et al. Does successful rotator cuff repair improve muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff? J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2017;26(6):967-974. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.036.
    31. Mirzayan R, Itamura JM, Vangsness CTJ, Holtom PD, Sherman R, Patzakis MJ. Management of chronic deep infection following rotator cuff repair. J. Bone Jt. Surg. – Am. Vol. 2000;82-A(8):1115-1121.
    32. Settecerri JJ, Pitner MA, Rock MG, Hanssen AD, Cofield RH. Infection after rotator cuff repair. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 1999;8(1):1-5.
    33. Nho SJ. Systematic Review of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair and Mini-Open Rotator Cuff Repair. J. Bone Jt. Surgery- Am. Vol. 2007;89((Suppl 3)):127-136. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00583.
    34. Severud EL, Ruotolo C, Abbott DD, Nottage WM. All-arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A long-term retrospective outcome comparison. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2003;19(3):234-238. doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50036.
    35. Walton JR, Murrell GAC. A two-year clinical outcomes study of 400 patients,comparing open surgery and arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair. Bone Jt. Res. 2012;1(9):210-217. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.19.2000072.
    36. Baker DK, Perez JL, Watson SL, et al. Arthroscopic Versus Open Rotator Cuff Repair: Which Has a Better Complication and 30-Day Readmission Profile? Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2017:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.019.
    37. Adla DN, Rowsell M, Pandey R. Cost-effectiveness of open versus arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2010;19(2):258-261. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.004.
    38. Churchill RS, Ghorai JK. Total cost and operating room time comparison of rotator cuff repair techniques at low, intermediate, and high volume centers: Mini-open versus all-arthroscopic. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2010;19(5):716-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.10.011.
    39. Murphy J, Gray A, Cooper C, Cooper D, Ramsay C, Carr A. Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open repair for rotator cuff tears an economic evaluation alongside the ukuff trial. Bone Jt. J. 2016;98-B(12):1648-1655. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B12.BJJ-2016-0121.R1.
    40. Dornan GJ, Katthagen JC, Tahal DS, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Massive Rotator Cuff Tears in Patients With Pseudoparalysis and Nonarthritic Shoulders. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2017;33(4):716-725. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.08.028.
    41. Colegate-Stone T, Allom R, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J. An analysis of outcome of arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair using subjective and objective scoring tools. Knee Surgery, Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2009;17(6):691-694. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0661-4.
    42. Fink Barnes LA, Kim HM, Caldwell JM, et al. Satisfaction, function and repair integrity after arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair. Bone Jt. J. 2017;99-B(2):245-249. doi:10.1302/0301620X.99B2.BJJ20160055.R1.
    43. Carr A, Cooper C, Campbell MK, et al. Effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (UKUFF). Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(1):107-115. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0424.R1.
    44. Dugas JR, Campbell DA, Warren RF, Robie BH, Millett PJ. Anatomy and dimensions of rotator cuff insertions. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2002;11(5):498-503. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.126208.
    45. Roth KM, Warth RJ, Lee JT, Millett PJ, ElAttrache NS. Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Repair for Full-Thickness Posterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tears. JBJS Rev. 2014;2(7):1-10. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.M.00081.
    46. Meier SW, Meier JD. Rotator cuff repair: The effect of double-row fixation on three-dimensional repair site. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2006;15(6):691-696. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.03.004.
    47. Mazzocca AD, Millett PJ, Guanche CA, Santangelo SA, Arciero RA. Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double- Row Suture Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005;33(12):1861-1868. doi:10.1177/0363546505279575.
    48. Baums MH, Spahn G, Steckel H, Fischer A, Schultz W, Klinger H-M. Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques. Knee Surgery, Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2009;17(12):1466-1472. doi:10.1007/s00167-009-0771-7.
    49. Kim DH, Elattrache NS, Tibone JE, et al. Biomechanical comparison of a single-row versus double-row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair. Am. J. Sports Med. 2006;34(3):407-414. doi:10.1177/0363546505281238.
    50. Baums MH, Spahn G, Buchhorn GH, Schultz W, Hofmann L, Klinger H. Biomechanical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation of a Single- and Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair in an In Vivo Sheep Model. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2012;28(6):769-777. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.11.019.
    51. Baums MH, Schminke B, Posmyk A, Miosge N, Klinger HM, Lakemeier S. Effect of single- and double-row rotator cuff repair at the tendon-to-bone interface: Preliminary results using an in vivo sheep model. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2015;135(1):111-118. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2118-1.
    52. Mook WR, Greenspoon JA, Millett PJ. Arthroscopic Double-Row Transosseous Equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair with a Knotless Self-Reinforcing Technique. Open Orthop. J. 2016;10:286-295. doi:10.2174/1874325001610010286.
    53. Vaishnav S, Millett PJ. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Scientific rationale, surgical technique, and early clinical and functional results of a knotless self-reinforcing double-row rotator cuff repair system. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2010;19(2):83-90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.012.
    54. Millett PJ, Espinoza C, Horan MP, et al. Predictors of outcomes after arthroscopic transosseous equivalent rotator cuff repair in 155 cases: a propensity score weighted analysis of knotted and knotless self-reinforcing repair techniques at a minimum of 2 years. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2017:1-10. doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2750-7.
    55. Bhatia S, Greenspoon JA, Horan MP, Warth RJ, Millett PJ. Two-Year Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in Recreational Athletes Older Than 70 Years. Am. J. Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1737-1742. doi:10.1177/0363546515577623.
    56. Ames JB, Horan MP, Van der Meijden OA, Leake MJ, Millett PJ. Association Between Acromial Index and Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears. J. Bone Jt. Surgery-American Vol. 2012;94(20):1862-1869. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01500.
    57. Greenspoon JA, Petri M, Millett PJ. Arthroscopic Knotless, Double-Row, Extended Linked Repair for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears. Arthrosc. Tech. 2016;5(1):e127-e132. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2015.10.007.
    58. Van Der Meijden OA, Wijdicks CA, Gaskill TR, Jansson KS, Millett PJ. Biomechanical analysis of two tendon posterosuperior rotator cuff tear repairs: Extended linked repairs and augmented repairs. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2013;29(1):37-45. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.012.
    59. Park MC, Peterson AB, McGarry MH, Park CJ, Lee TQ. Knotless Transosseous-Equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair Improves Biomechanical Self-reinforcement Without Diminishing Footprint Contact Compared With Medial Knotted Repair. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2017;33(8): 1473-1481. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.021
    60. Huang AL, Thavorn K, van Katwyk S, MacDonald P, Lapner P. Double-Row Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Is More Cost-Effective Than Single-Row Repair. J. Bone Jt. Surgery-American Vol. 2017;99:1730-6. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.01044
    61. Denard PJ, Jiwani AZ, Lädermann A, Burkhart SS. Long-Term Outcome of Arthroscopic Massive Rotator Cuff Repair: The Importance of Double-Row Fixation. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2012;28(7):909-915. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.12.007.
    62. Duquin TR, Buyea C, Bisson LJ. Which Method of Rotator Cuff Repair Leads to the Highest Rate of Structural Healing? Am. J. Sports Med. 2010;38(4):835-841. doi:10.1177/0363546509359679.
    63. Ma H-L, Chiang E-R, Wu H-TH, et al. Clinical Outcome and Imaging of Arthroscopic Single-Row and Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2012;28(1):16-24. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.003.
    64. Gartsman GM, Drake G, Edwards TB, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of arthroscopic full-thickness supraspinatus rotator cuff repair: Single-row versus double-row suture bridge (transosseous equivalent) fixation. Results of a prospective, randomized study. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2013;22(11):1480-1487. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.020.
    65. Millett PJ, Warth RJ, Dornan GJ, Lee JT, Spiegl UJ. Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2014;23(4):586-597. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.10.006.
    66. Chen M, Xu W, Dong Q, Huang Q, Xie Z, Mao Y. Outcomes of Single-Row Versus Double-Row Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2013;29(8):1437-1449. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.03.076.
    67. Mascarenhas R, Chalmers PN, Sayegh ET, et al. Is Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Clinically Superior to Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2014;30(9):1156-1165. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.015.
    68. Spiegl UJ, Euler SA, Millett PJ, Hepp P. Summary of Meta-Analyses Dealing with Single-Row Double-Row Repair Techniques for Rotator Cuff Tears. Open Orthop. J. 2016;10(Suppl 1: M9):330-338. doi:10.2174/1874325001610010330.
    69. Burks RT, Crim J, Brown N, Fink B, Greis PE. A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Arthroscopic Single- and Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Magnetic-Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Early Clinical Evaluation. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009;37(4):674-682. doi:10.1177/0363546508328115.
    70. Nho SJ, Slabaugh MA, Seroyer ST, et al. Does the Literature Support Double-Row Suture Anchor Fixation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair? A Systematic Review Comparing Double-Row and Single-Row Suture Anchor Configuration. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2009;25(11):1319-1328. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.02.005.
    71. Ide J, Karasugi T, Okamoto N, Taniwaki T, Oka K, Mizuta H. Functional and structural comparisons of the arthroscopic knotless double-row suture bridge and single-row repair for anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2015;24(10):1544-1554. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.015.
    72. Yang J, Robbins M, Reilly J, Maerz T, Anderson K. The Clinical Effect of a Rotator Cuff Retear: A Meta-analysis of Arthroscopic Single-Row and Double-Row Repairs. Am. J. Sports Med. 2017;45(3):733-741. doi:10.1177/0363546516652900.
    73. Warth RJ, Millett PJ, Warth RJ. Posterosuperior Rotator Cuff Tears: Classification, Pattern Recognition, and Treatment. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2014;22(8):521-534. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-08-521.
    74. Franceschi F, Papalia R, Franceschetti E, et al. Double-Row Repair Lowers the Retear Risk After Accelerated Rehabilitation. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016;44(4):948-956. doi:10.1177/0363546515623031.