Medicina (Jan 2024)

The Arthroscopic Biceps Rerouting Technique Shows Better Early Clinical Outcomes within 1 Year Than Partial Repair in Large to Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

  • Hyung-Seok Park,
  • Kwon-Hyoung Ham,
  • Yang-Soo Kim

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60020240
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 60, no. 2
p. 240

Abstract

Read online

Background and Objectives: The arthroscopic biceps rerouting (BR) technique was introduced as a novel technique for large-to-massive rotator cuff tears (LMRCTs). This method can restore shoulder stability, and its biomechanical effect was verified in a cadaver experiment. Recent reports have shown favorable clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of partial repair with those of the BR technique in LMRCTs. Materials and Methods: We included 72 patients who had undergone LMRCTs. Arthroscopic partial repair was performed in 31 patients (group I), while repair with the BR technique was performed in 41 patients (group II). Functional and imaging outcomes were evaluated and compared using a visual analog scale for pain, range of motion (ROM), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and Korean Shoulder Score (KSS) before the surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after the surgery and at the last follow-up. Tendon integrity was investigated using magnetic resonance in all the patients at 12 months postoperative. Results: The mean follow-up period was 22.11 ± 10.47 months (range, 12–53 months). Forward flexion (p = 0.02) and external rotation at the side (p = 0.04) were significantly higher in group II than in group I on postoperative day (POD) 12 months. For internal rotation, group II showed significant improvement compared to group I on POD 3 months (p = 0.002) and at 6 months postoperative (p = 0.01). On POD 12 months, the ASES (p = 0.047) and KSS (p = 0.048) were better in group II. Significant improvements in pain and clinical scores were observed in both groups at the last follow-up. However, the two groups had no significant differences in pain, clinical scores, or ROM at the last follow-up. Retear of the repaired tendon was observed in nine patients in group I (29.03%) and eight in group II (19.51%, p = 0.35). Conclusions: Partial repair and repair using the BR technique effectively improved clinical and radiologic outcomes. The BR technique revealed early recovery of ROM and better clinical results than partial repair at one year postoperative. This could be a useful method in treating LMRCTs.

Keywords