Evidence Hub

An isolated bioinductive repair vs. sutured repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: 2-year results of a double blinded, randomized controlled trial

Jorge Alberto Camacho Chacón, Victor Roda Rojo, Adrián Martín Martínez, Jorge Cuenca Espierrez, Veronica Garcia Calvo, José Manuel Calderón Meza, Carlos Martin Hernandez

Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2024

30 participants · 27 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Partial-thickness rotator cuff tears treated with an isolated bioinductive repair (IBR) in lieu of a completion-and-repair have shown complete healing. This treatment option is afforded by the remaining tendon's structural integrity, which is similar to that present in small/medium full-thickness tears (FTTs) when the rotator cable remains intact. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated whether an IBR for small/medium FTTs resulted in superior healing and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with a sutured repair.

METHODS

This prospective, double blinded (patients and outcome assessors), single-center RCT enrolled patients ≥18 years with a small/medium (≤2.5cm) full thickness supraspinatus tear and intact rotator cable. Patients were randomized and blinded to arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent repair (control, n = 30) or IBR (n = 30). The primary outcome was tendon quality on biopsy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were PROs (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant-Murley Shoulder [CMS], and pain visual analogue scale scores) and tendon thickness and healing measured via MRI at 6, 12, and 24 months; satisfaction at 12 and 24 months; and time to return to work.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic, tear, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the groups (IBR: mean age, 54.2 years, 14 male; control: mean age, 56.4 years, 16 male). Measured via 6 month biopsy, highly organized, parallel bundles of collagen, without inflammation,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 30 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free