{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04875846501128668, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028442437923250564, 'mean_word_length': 5.24225352112676, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Repair Integrity and Functional Outcome After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Background: Only a few studies have examined repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic suture-bridge rotator cuff repair procedure. In addition, no reported study has compared outcomes between the suture-bridge and double-row techniques. Purpose: This study compared the functional outcome and repair integrity of arthroscopic double-row and conventional suture-bridge repair in full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Fifty-two consecutive full-thickness rotator cuff tears with 1 to 4 cm of anterior to posterior dimension that underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were included. A double-row technique was used in the first 26 consecutive shoulders, and a conventional suture-bridge technique was used in the next 26 consecutive shoulders. Fifty shoulders (92.5%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated a minimum 2 years (mean, 37.2 months; range, 24-54) postoperatively using the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores. The postoperative cuff integrity was evaluated a mean of 33.0 (range, 10-54) months postoperatively. Results: At the final follow-up, the average UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores improved significantly, to 32.3, 90.5, and 80.7, respectively, in the double-row group and to 30.6, 88.5, and 74.0, respectively, in the suture-bridge group. The UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores improved in both groups postoperatively (all P < .001); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at final follow-up (P = .185, .585, and .053, respectively). The retear rate was 24% in the shoulders that underwent double-row repair and 20% in the shoulders that underwent suture-bridge repair; this difference was not statistically significant (P = .733). Conclusion: The arthroscopic conventional suture-bridge technique resulted in comparable patient satisfaction, functional outcome, and rates of retear compared with the arthroscopic double-row technique in full-thickness rotator cuff tears.