Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using Margin Convergence Versus Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Should Candidates for Margin Convergence Be Treated With Superior Capsular Reconstruction?

Abstract

Background: Both margin convergence rotator cuff repair (MC-RCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) result in improved clinical outcomes in the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs). The question remains whether it is better to perform MC-RCR using native, albeit occasionally deficient, tissues or to perform primary SCR. Purpose/Hypothesis: To compare the clinical results of MC-RCR versus SCR for the treatment of massive RCTs. It was hypothesized that SCR would yield better outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were patients who underwent arthroscopic MC-RCR or SCR for massive RCTs performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019. MC-RCR was performed if it was technically possible to close the defect; otherwise, SCR was performed. Outcomes were assessed at 6 months and then annually using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation; shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary; and patient satisfaction scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared between groups. Revision surgeries and complications were reported. Results: Included were 46 patients in the MC-RCR group (mean age, 59 ± 8 years) and 46 patients in the SCR group (mean age, 57 ± 7 years); 29 patients in each group were available at 2-year follow-up. Preoperative outcome scores were not significantly different between groups. Within groups, all outcome scores improved from pre- to postoperatively ( P < .05), with no significant differences in postoperative scores or patient satisfaction between groups. No significant between-group differences were noted in the percentage of patients who reached the MCID, SCB, and PASS (MCID, 92.3% vs 84.6%; SCB, 80.8% vs 80.8%; and PASS, 66.7% vs 66.7%). SCR had a significantly lower survivorship rate compared with MC-RCR (84.7% vs 100%) ( P = .026). Conclusion: Both MC-RCR and SCR provided similar improvement in outcomes; however, SCR resulted in a significantly lower survivorship rate at 2 years postoperatively. If an RCT is technically repairable, we recommend that it be repaired primarily, even if MC techniques are needed to close the defect. SCR remains a good option for massive RCTs that are not technically repairable.