Massive and irreparable rotator cuff tear treatment by arthroscopic partial repair with long head of the biceps tendon augmentation provides better healing and functional results than partial repair only

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 2 treatment methods for massive and irreparable rotator cuff tears (RCTs): partial repair (PR) and PR with long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) augmentation. Biceps tendon augmentation is believed to promote better healing at the bone-tendon junction, leading to improved clinical and radiologic outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective comparative study included patients with chronic, massive and irreparable RCTs involving both the supraspinatus (SSP) and infraspinatus muscles. Only patients with failure of nonoperative treatment and at least 1 year of follow-up between 2013 and 2018 were analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the chosen treatment method. Irreparability was defined intraoperatively as the inability to achieve sustainable repair of the SSP after complete release, typically corresponding to a Goutallier classification of stage ≥ 3 and Patte classification of stage 3. The clinical assessment protocol involved measurements of range of motion and shoulder strength, as well as the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and Simple Shoulder Test score. Radiologic assessment comprised measurements of the acromiohumeral distance, Hamada classification, Sugaya classification, and Goutallier classification of both the SSP and infraspinatus.

Results: The study included data from 60 patients (30 in each group) with a mean age of 62.5 years and a mean follow-up period of 34.5 months. The retear rate was 43.3% for PR with LHBT augmentation and 73.3% for PR alone (P = .036). During the final examination, statistically significant differences in favor of PR with LHBT augmentation were observed for the CMS (76.2 ± 10.9 vs. 70.9 ± 11.5, P = .034), Sugaya classification (3.5 ± 1.1 vs. 4.1 ± 0.9, P = .035), and acromiohumeral distance (5.8 ± 2 mm vs. 4.7 ± 1.3 mm, P = .021). There were no significant differences between the groups in range of motion, shoulder strength, Hamada classification, Simple Shoulder Test score, and postoperative Goutallier stage.

Conclusion: PR with LHBT augmentation for patients with irreparable, massive RCTs provides a lower retear rate and better humeral head centralization, as well as improved results measured by the CMS, compared with PR alone.