Arthroscopic revision cuff repair: do tendons have a second chance to heal?

Background: Few studies have investigated postoperative tendon integrity after reoperation for failed rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair (AR-RCR) and identify the risk factors related to re-retear.

Methods: Sixty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 55 years) with primary failed open (38%) or arthroscopic (62%) cuff repairs underwent AR-RCR and were reviewed regarding clinical examination findings and imaging studies. Patients with massive cuff tears and upward humeral migration (acromiohumeral distance < 6 mm) or glenohumeral osteoarthritis were excluded. Revision repair was performed by a single, experienced shoulder surgeon. Complete footprint coverage was achieved in all cases using a single-row (70%), double-row (19%), or side-to-side (11%) technique. The primary outcome measure was tendon healing assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (57 cases) or computed tomography arthrogram (12 cases) performed at minimum 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores, subjective results, and complications. The mean follow-up period was 43 months (range, 12-136 months).

Results: The cuff tendons did not heal to the tuberosity in 36% of the shoulders (25 of 69) following revision cuff surgery. Absence of tendon healing was associated with poorer shoulder function (average Constant score, 69 ± 20 vs. 54 ± 18; P = .003) and a decreased Subjective Shoulder Value (72% vs. 54%, P = .002). Factors that were negatively associated with tendon healing were age ≥ 55 years (odds ratio [OR], 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.6-12.5]; P = .02), tendon retraction of stage 2 or higher (OR, 4.4 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-14.3]; P = .01), and fatty infiltration index > 2 (OR, 10.2; P < .0001). No differences in retear rates were found between single-row and double-row cases. In 36 shoulders, tissue samples were harvested and submitted for bacteriologic culture analysis; 13 (36%) showed positive findings for infection (Cutibacterium acnes in 12 of 13) and associated antibiotic treatment was given. Overall, 25% of patients had unsatisfactory clinical results and 22% were disappointed or dissatisfied. At last follow-up, 4 patients (5.7%) underwent reoperations, with a second AR-RCR in 1 and conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 3.

Conclusion: Despite careful patient selection and intraoperative complete footprint coverage, in this study the tendons did not heal to bone in 36% of cases after revision cuff surgery. The absence of tendon healing is associated with poorer clinical and subjective results. Patients aged ≥ 55 years and patients with larger tears (stage 2 or higher) and/or muscle fatty infiltration (fatty infiltration index > 2) have significantly lower rates of healing. Surgeons should be aware that structurally failed cuff repair may also be associated with low-grade infection.