Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
Arthroscopic Management of Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Whole Rotator Cable Reconstruction Using Proximal Biceps Tendon Autograft
Published on: June 6, 2025
Functional and Structural Outcomes After Retears of Arthroscopically Repaired Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears
Suguru Tanaka1, Masafumi Gotoh2, Koji Tanaka1
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Japan.
Background:
Most studies have shown acceptable clinical results in patients with large or massive tears treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR); however, the effects of retears after surgery in these patients remain unknown.
Purpose:
To evaluate functional and structural outcomes after retears of large and massive rotator cuff tears treated by ARCR.
Study Design:
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A total of 196 consecutive patients with large to massive rotator cuff tears underwent physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging before and after ARCR at 6, 12, and 24 months. Of these, 9 patients were lost at 6 months after surgery. Therefore, 187 patients were followed up for 24 months after surgery; 148 patients showed no postsurgical ruptures. Consequently, the remaining 39 patients with postsurgical ruptures were included in this study (mean age at surgery, 64.2 ± 8.7 years). Functional outcome measures comprised the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Structural outcome measures consisted of the global fatty degeneration index (GFDI), mediolateral tear size, and residual tendon attachment area as evaluated by our own scoring system.
Results:
The mean UCLA and JOA scores significantly improved from 16.3 ± 3.9 and 63.2 ± 10.7 preoperatively to 27.9 ± 5.5 (P < .0001) and 84.5 ± 9.4 (P < .0001) at final follow-up, respectively. The mean mediolateral tear size (P = .03, .02, and .02, respectively) and residual tendon attachment area (P = .04, .03, and .04, respectively) significantly improved from preoperatively to 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The correlation analysis between the functional and structural variables confirmed significant associations between the residual tendon attachment area, the JOA and UCLA scores at 24 months postoperatively, and the preoperative GFDI (r = -0.81 to 0.78).
Conclusion:
The residual tendon attachment area after a retear was significantly larger at 24 months after surgery than before surgery. In addition, significant associations were confirmed between preoperative fatty degeneration, the residual tendon attachment area, and functional outcomes after a retear. These results may explain why functional outcomes significantly improved even after retears in this series.
