RESUMO
PURPOSE: The Stump classification is significantly correlated with a retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. However, no study has evaluated whether or not the stump classification is correlated with retear in the suture-bridge or double-row repair techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between a retear and the stump classification in the suture-bridge and double-row repair techniques. METHODS: Among 389 patients who underwent arthroscopic repairs of full-thickness rotator cuff tears using suture-bridge or double-row repair techniques, 326 patients (median age 67.0 years; range 25-85) were included. There were 51 small, 172 medium, 83 large, and 20 massive tears. Two hundred forty patients were treated with the suture-bridge technique, and 86 patients were treated with the double-row technique. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, the Cofield classification, anteroposterior and mediolateral tear size on preoperative MRI, global fatty degeneration index, and the stump classification. Cuff integrity was evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months after surgery. The patients were divided into the intact and retear groups and the relationship between the variables and retear was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The overall retear rate was 10.1%. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of a retear were the stump classification type 3 (Odds ratio: 4.71, p = 0.0246), global fatty degeneration index (Odds ratio: 3.87, p = 0.0030), and anteroposterior tear size (Odds ratio: 1.07, p = 0.0077) in the suture bridge technique. In the double-row technique, the independent predictors of retear were stump classification type 3 (Odds ratio: 7.82, p = 0.0348), and age (Odds ratio: 1.22, p = 0.0163). CONCLUSION: The stump classification was significantly correlated with retear in the suture-bridge and double-row repair technique. Stump classification type 3 was indicated to be an important risk factor for predicting retear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
