MedPath

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Tear Repair: Single Versus Double Layer Fixation

Not Applicable
Conditions
Rotator Cuff Tear
Interventions
Procedure: single layer fixation
Procedure: double layer fixation
Registration Number
NCT03362320
Lead Sponsor
Austrian Research Group for Regenerative and Orthopedic Medicine
Brief Summary

Retear rates after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs remain unsatisfactorily high. Recently, attention has been paid to restore the rotator cuff's native anatomy by reconstructing the superior joint capsule. However, the debate whether to reconstruct only the superficial tendinous part or also the deeper capsulo-ligamentous part of the rotator cuff is ongoing. Thus, the intention of the present study is to compare double-layer versus single-layer arthroscopic rotator cuff repair regarding retear rate and clinical outcome.

Detailed Description

Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
UNKNOWN
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
70
Inclusion Criteria
  • patients with repairable supra- and infraspinatus tears scheduled for arthroscopic rotator cuff fixation
  • tear size of at least 2.5 cm and up to 4.0 cm
  • signed informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
  • axillary nerve palsy

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
single layer fixationsingle layer fixationPatients with torn infraspinatus and supraspinatus tendon undergoing arthroscopy rotator cuff repair with single layer fixation
double layer fixationdouble layer fixationPatients with torn infraspinatus and supraspinatus tendon undergoing arthroscopy rotator cuff repair with double layer fixation
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Retear rate12 months postoperatively

Comparison of re-ruptures rate evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging between groups

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
ASESbaseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) between groups. The ASES is a patient-rated questionnaire with a total between 0 and 100 points with higher scores indicating better outcome.

qDASHbaseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) between groups

SSTbaseline and 24 months postoperatively

Comparison of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) between groups

Constant-Murley scorebaseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the total Constant-Murley score (min 0 to max 100; higher values represent a better outcome) between groups

Satisfaction with the procedure24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of satisfaction with the procedure between groups. Satisfaction is evaluated by asking patients one question to rate their satisfaction with the procedure based on a likert scale (4 = 'very satisfied', 3 = 'quite satisfied', 2 = 'moderately satisfied', 1 = 'less satisfied', 0 = 'not at all satisfied').

SSVbaseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the Simple Soulder Value (SSV) between groups

Tendon integritybaseline and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of tendon integrity (re-tear / no re-tear) evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging between groups

VASbaseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) between groups

WORCbaseline and 24 months postoperatively

Comparison of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) between groups

Range of motion (ROM)baseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of ROMs between groups

SF-36baseline, 24 and 60 months postoperatively

Comparison of the quality-of-life score short form 36 (SF-36) between groups

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

St. Vincent Shoulder & Sports Clinic

🇦🇹

Vienna, Austria

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath