Table 3.
Functional results stage 2–3 fatty infiltration.
| Sample size | Treatment | Age | Length of follow-up | Outcome parameter | Stage Goutallier fatty infiltration (n) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | ||||||
| Milano et al26 | 101 | Bio vs. metal anchors | 61.6 ± 8.3 | 24.4 ± 2.6 | (n = 34) | (n = 29) | |
| Constanta | 104.4 ± 12.5 | 91.3 ± 25.3 | |||||
| DASH | 14.6 ± 14.1 | 28.9 ± 19.4 | |||||
| Grasso et al21 | 72 | Single vs. double row | 56.8 ± 8.7 | 24.8 ± 1.4 | (n = 28) | (n = 17) | |
| Constanta | 102.7 ± 24 | 106.4 ± 14.9 | |||||
| DASH | 14.5 ± 13.8 | 14.1 ± 13 | |||||
| Strength (lb) | 12.6 ± 6.6 | 12.8 ± 5.5 | |||||
| Milano et al27 | 71 | +/−subacromial decompression | Group 1 61 ± 7.0 Group 2 59.7 ± 9.7 | 24 | (n = 27) | (n = 18) | |
| Constanta | 103.6 ± 12.2 | 94.2 ± 21.2 | |||||
| DASH | 18.1 ± 15.5 | 23.6 ± 20.1 | |||||
a
age and gender adjusted Constant score.