Mini-Open Fascia Lata Interposition Graft Results In Superior 2-Year Clinical Outcomes When Compared to Arthroscopic Partial Repair for Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the results of surgical treatment for irreparable rotator cuff tear (IRCT) by the mini-open interposition procedure using fascia lata autograft against outcomes of the arthroscopic partial repair technique. METHODS: An interventional, prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blinded study involving 2 study groups was conducted. The graft group (n = 20) underwent the mini-open interposition procedure using fascia lata autograft. The control group (n = 22) underwent arthroscopic partial repair. Patients were evaluated using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder scale, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Constant-Murley (Constant) score, the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, active range of motion, frontal flexion strength, retear rates evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging analysis, occurrence of complications, and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: The graft group had better UCLA (31.5 vs 28.18, P = .035) (100% exceeded the MCID for the graft group and 95% for the control group), ASES (88.62 vs 77.06, P = .016) (100% exceeded the MCID for both groups), Constant (78.85 vs 61.68, P < .001), and VAS (0.95 vs 2.59, P = .01) scores at the 24-month follow-up. For active forward elevation range, both groups showed no statistically significant differences (168.5 vs 164.54, P = .538). The results for active external and internal rotation were better in the graft group (60.25 vs 40, and 9.1 vs 6.9, P < .001), as was frontal flexion strength (4.24 vs 2.67, P = .005). The graft group also had lower retear rates (15% vs 45.5%, P = .033). No complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of surgeries for IRCT by the mini-open interposition procedure using fascia lata autograft and by the arthroscopic partial repair technique showed good results in both groups over time and exceeded the MCID. However, most comparative outcomes between groups showed better results for the interposition procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.