Randomized trial investigates re-tear rates in rotator cuff repair with collagen, indicating improved tendon healing.
While arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is recognized as a standard treatment option, the risk of postoperative re-tear is a major concern. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of porcine-derived absorbable patch-type atelocollagen during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Sixty-four patients who were diagnosed with rotator cuff tears by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were enrolled prospectively from November 2020 to December 2021. Both groups were performed using the suture bridge technique. For experimental group 1, before securing the lateral anchors, absorbable patch-type atelocollagen was inserted between the footprint and the tendon. On postoperative day 2, the patients underwent MRI to confirm containment of the patch-type atelocollagen. At postoperative 6 months and 1 year, the signal intensity (SI) of the repaired tendon was assessed on MRI. Patients were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, range of motions (ROM), and shoulder function was evaluated by using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment score (ASES), Constant score, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score and Korean Shoulder Score (KSS) preoperatively and at 2, 3, 6 months and at 1 year follow-up visit. The patch-type atelocollagen was confirmed to be contained by the time 0 MRI was taken 2 days postoperatively. Twelve re-tear cases were recorded representing a 21.8% re-tear rate. A significantly low re-tear rate was found in group 1 as three cases were observed in group 1 (10.3%) and nine cases were observed in group 2 (34.6%) (p = .048). However, no significant changes in the pain or functional scores and ROM were observed between the groups 1 year postoperatively. The tendon healing rate after rotator cuff repair was significantly higher in the group who received absorbable patch-type atelocollagen than in the control group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: