Bridging Reconstruction With Interpositional Dermal Allograft Has Superior Healing Than Does Maximal Repair for Treatment of Large to Massive, Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears—Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Control Trial
Jillian Karpyshyn, Jie Ma, John-Paul King, Ivan Wong
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the radiographic results of bridging rotator cuff reconstruction (BRR) with dermal allograft and maximal repair for large or massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from a single-center, blinded-observer, randomized controlled trial that examined clinical outcomes of BRR compared with maximal repair. A sample size of 30 patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-proven large or massive (>3 cm), retracted rotator cuff tears and/or involvement of 2 or more tendons were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: maximal repair or BRR using dermal allograft. MRIs were obtained preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The primary outcome of this study was the retear rate on MRI. Secondary outcomes included progression of muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration. RESULTS: There was no difference in age or preoperative tear size between the 2 groups. Patients treated with BRR had decreased retear rate (21%) compared with patients who received maximal repair alone (87%). There was no difference in the number of patients who had progression of muscle atrophy (P = .088 for supraspinatus and P = .738 for infraspinatus) or fatty infiltration (P = .879 for supraspinatus and P = .693 for infraspinatus) between the 2 groups. A significant increase in mean postoperative supraspinatus muscle atrophy was identified in the maximal repair group (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing radiographic results of maximal repair versus BRR using dermal allograft in the treatment of large or massive rotator cuff tears show that BRR results in a significantly reduced structural failure rate and a trend toward better preservation of supraspinatus muscle mass compared with maximal repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.