• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.91-99
• /
• 2019

Most patients experience pain relief and functional improvement after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. In some patients, however, symptoms still remain after surgery. Failed rotator cuff repair is a complex outcome of biological, technical, and traumatic factors. Moreover, re-tears might or might not be the main cause for patients with persistent pain after rotator cuff repair. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the patient's history, physical examination, and appropriate imaging studies will be needed to evaluate and manage these patients. The patient's age, functional requirement, quality of the rotator cuff, preoperative range of motion, quality of the deltoid, and glenohumeral arthritis are factors to consider before performing revisional rotator cuff repair. Preoperative patient education is as important as the surgical technique for successful revisional rotator cuff repair.

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.135-140
• /
• 2021

Background: We hypothesized in this study that the characteristics of retear cases vary according to surgeon volume and that surgical outcomes differ between primary and revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (revisional ARCR). Methods: Surgeons performing more than 12 rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) per year were defined as high-volume surgeons, and those performing fewer than 12 RCRs were considered low-volume surgeons. Of the 47 patients who underwent revisional ARCR at our clinic enrolled in this study, 21 cases were treated by high-volume surgeons and 26 cases by low-volume surgeons. In all cases, the interval between primary surgery and revisional ARCR, degree of "acromial scuffing," number of anchors, RCR technique, retear pattern, fatty infiltration, retear size, operating time, and clinical outcome were recorded. Results: During primary surgery, significantly more lateral anchors (p=0.004) were used, and the rate of use of the double-row repair technique was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the high- versus low-volume surgeon group. Moreover, the "cut-through pattern" was observed significantly more frequently among the cases treated by high- versus low-volume surgeons (p=0.008). The clinical outcomes after revisional ARCR were not different between the two groups. Conclusions: Double-row repair during primary surgery and the cut-through pattern during revisional ARCR were more frequent in the high- versus low-volume surgeon groups. However, no differences in retear site or size, fatty infiltration grade, or outcomes were observed between the groups.