Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Tear Transosseous Repair System: The Sharc-FT Using the Taylor Stitcher

Single-row versus transosseous technique in the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare single-row suture-anchors (SA) versus transosseous arthroscopic (TO) technique in the treatment of patients with rotator cuff tears in terms of clinical structural outcomes at atleast 24 months of follow-up.

METHODS

The systematic review was performed according to "PRISMA guidelines" (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), in order to identify all the studies comparing clinical, both subjective and objective, outcomes with 24 months follow-up minimum in patients undergoing arthroscopic RC repair with the SR and TO technique. OVID-MEDLINE®, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PubMed were searched from January 2010 to October 2022 to identify relevant studies, using the following key words, that were combined together to achieve maximum search strategy sensitivity: "Rotator cuff tear" OR "repair" OR "shoulder" OR "reconstruction" OR "suture" OR "arthroscopic" OR "single-row" OR "transosseous".

RESULTS

Six papers were finally analyzed in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference on Constant scores and for ASES for studies considering suture-anchors (SA) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of Constant scores and of ASES for TO (transosseous) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of CONSTANT for TO versus SA groups showed no differences in the outcomes of SA and TO techniques for the repair of Rotator Cuff Tears at minimum 24 months follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair technique and SA (suture-anchor) technique both lead to significant short-term improvement and satisfactory subjective outcome scores with low complication/failure rates. No differences were found in the final outcome between the two techniques.

Clinical and functional outcomes of a novel transosseous device to treat rotator cuff tears: A minimum 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Despite the improvements in the repair equipment techniques of rotator cuff, a gold standard method has not been defined yet and transosseous fixation through deltoid-splitting (mini-open) approach is still regarded as a good option. The primary purpose of this study is to present satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes with a novel transosseous device in full-thickness rotator cuff tear through deltoid-splitting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was performed on 70 consecutive patients who underwent surgery by a single surgeon from June 2014 to June 2016 for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear and was managed with a novel transosseous device. Total number of patients, mean age, percentage of male and female patients, mean duration of follow-up, percentage of involvement of the dominant extremity, affected shoulder, and tear size were recorded. Functional and clinical outcomes were assessed baseline and postoperatively at 3 and 6 months and final follow-up using Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) and Constant-Murley scores.

RESULTS

A total of 70 (49 (70%) female, 21 (30%) male) patients whose mean age was 58.66 ± 9.19 (38-77) years were included. The mean surgery time was 35.33 ± 5.34 (28-55) min. The mean follow-up time was 28.31 ± 3.03 (24-36) months. According to the DeOrio and Cofield classification, 15 (21.43%) tears were small, 33 (47.14%) medium, 16 (22.86%) large, and 6 (8.57%) massive. By the final follow-up, the mean Constant-Murley score had significantly improved from 27.67 ± 7.46 (13-41) to 81.25 ± 3.77 (74-87; p = 0.0001) and the Q-DASH score had decreased from 82.34 ± 10.37 (65.91-100) to 10.28 ± 6.88 (0-23.45; p = 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the Constant-Murley or Q-DASH score at baseline-final follow-up between the small, medium, large, and massive tear groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tear using this novel transosseous device significantly improved functional and clinical scores. However, further long-term prospective randomized multicenter trials involving comparative studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Two rotator cuff tear repair techniques for sovraspinatus tendon tear: transosseous sharc-ft vs single row repair

Background:

Despite rotator cuff repair techniques have developed significantly in last decade, pushed by the progress in technology and materials, the treatment of rotator cuff tears and re-tears is still a big challenge for shoulder surgeons. The aim of this study is to perform clinical and radiological evaluation (ultrasound and MRI) of patients treated with transosseous sharc-ft, and single row techniques for sovraspinatus rotator cuff tear at 6, 12 and 24 months follow up.

Methods:

Twenty-eight consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic repair for rotator cuff tear were enrolled in the study and divided in two different groups: group A (14 patients) underwent a single row technique repair; group B (14 patients) underwent a transosseous sharc-ft technique repair. All participants had MRI or ultrasound examination confirmed full-thickness tears of sovraspinatus tendon before surgery. All the patients underwent clinical evaluation at 45 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 and 24 months post-operatively with VAS, Dash, Constant and ASES score. Diagnostic ultrasound examination was performed at 6 months follow up while the MRI examination at 1 and 2 year follow up.

Results:

The whole primary variables didn’t show any significant difference and the groups were homogenous (age, Goutallier fatty infiltration, VAS, DASH, Constant, ASES). Some statistically significant differences are visible at discrete variables in a specific time: Dash at 12 months and Constant at 24 months show a significant improvement versus single-row technique.

Conclusion:

The arthroscopic transosseous repair technique with sharc-ft showed excellent results with little significant statically difference between this technique and the single row for this kind of lesion after 1 year of follow-up. Clinical data from this study confirmed, with the help of ultrasound examination and MRI, the excellent clinical outcome obtained by the patients. Further studies are needed to find differences between these techniques in the repair of large and massive rotator cuff lesions. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Optimal Angle of the Bone Tunnel for Avoiding Axillary Nerve Injuries During Arthroscopic Transosseous Rotator Cuff Repair: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Simulation Study

Background

Axillary nerve injury and suture cutout through the roof of the tunnel are potential complications of arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair (ATORCR).

Purpose

To determine a safe angle of drilling for the bone tunnel during ATORCR such that the axillary nerve is not at risk. The thickness of the bone bridge over the tunnel for different angles of drilling was also determined.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

The drilling of a straight tunnel was simulated on 30 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in the oblique coronal plane by drawing a straight line that passed at a "safe distance" of 5 mm from the axillary nerve and emerging at the medial border of the insertion of the rotator cuff on the greater tuberosity. The angle made by this line with the horizontal axis of the humerus was measured on 3 MRI sections: anterior (passing just posterior to the lateral lip of the bicipital groove), middle (at the most lateral point of the proximal humerus), and posterior (an equal number of cuts away from the middle section as between anterior and middle). The thickness of the overlying bone roof was measured for this line as well as for simulation lines drawn at 50°, 55°, 60°, and 65° with the horizontal axis. A "safe limit," defined as the mean - 2SD, was also calculated.

Results

The axillary nerve was found to be safe, with a safety margin of 5 mm, at drill angles of less than 61.1° and 60.3° in the posterior and middle sections, respectively. The safe limit value for thickness of the overlying bone roof for the tunnel drilled at 60° was 5.0 mm in the posterior section (mean, 8.2 ± 0.3 mm) and 5.5 mm in the middle section (mean, 8.1 ± 0.2 mm). In the anterior section, the minimum safe angle was 57.7°, and the mean thickness of the bone roof for the 55° angle was 6.3 ± 0.2 mm (safe limit, 3.7 mm).

Conclusion

Straight bone tunnels in ATORCR surgery should be drilled at an angle of 60° to the horizontal axis of the humerus or 30° to the humeral shaft to ensure the safety of the axillary nerve while at the same time ensuring adequate thickness of the overlying bone roof. The anterior tunnel close to the bicipital groove should be drilled cautiously at 55° to the horizontal axis or 35° to the humeral shaft.

Clinical Relevance

The findings of the present study will help the surgeon choose the best angle for drilling tunnels during ATORCR surgery to avoid axillary nerve injuries as well as suture cut-through without the need for any proprietary device.