title: Comparisons of retear patterns for 3 arthroscopic rotator cuff repair methods.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Only a few studies have reported an unusual retear pattern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair based on the repair method.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the retear pattern of the arthroscopic single-row technique (SRT), conventional suture-bridge technique (SBT), and knotless suture-bridge technique (K-SBT) for rotator cuff tears.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study evaluated 65 shoulders with retears revealed on magnetic resonance imaging at least 6 months after arthroscopic repair for a full-thickness rotator cuff tear. A retear was revealed in 21, 22, and 22 shoulders after the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT, respectively. Retears were classified as type 1 (unhealed tendons), type 2 (medially ruptured tendons with a healed footprint), or type 3 (unable to classify). Retear patterns were classified as full- or partial-thickness lesions; partial-thickness retears were further classified as articular- or bursal-side lesions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A type 1 retear was observed in 71.4%, 40.9%, and 54.5% and a type 2 retear in 23.8%, 59.0%, and 40.9% of patients in the SRT, SBT, and K-SBT groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed among the 3 groups together (P = .195); however, a significant difference was observed between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .049). No significant differences were observed for either type 1 (P = .121) or type 2 (including both full- and partial-thickness) retears (P = .064) among the 3 groups together. When respective pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference was noted in both type 1 (P = .044) and type 2 retears (P = .019) between the SRT and SBT groups alone. No significant differences were observed in type 1 (P = .281) or type 2 full-thickness retears (P = .117) among the 3 groups together. When pairs of groups were compared, a significant difference in type 2 full-thickness retears was detected between the SRT and SBT groups alone (P = .037).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The SBT has a different retear pattern than that of the SRT. However, the K-SBT retear pattern was not different from that of the SRT.
authors.affiliation: Kyung Cheon Kim, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 640 Daesa-Dong, Jung-Gu, Daejeon 301-040, South Korea. kckim@cnu.ac.kr.
authors.forename: Kyung Cheon
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Hyun Dae
authors.initials: HD
authors.lastname: Shin
authors.forename: Soo Min
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Cha
authors.forename: Jun Yeong
authors.initials: JY
authors.lastname: Park
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000379:methods*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D012008:Recurrence; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D000070636:Rotator Cuff Injuries; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013536:Suture Techniques
keywords: retear; rotator cuff tear; single-row technique; suture-bridge technique