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.

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.