TABLE 1.
Included Studiesa
| Author (Year) | Study Design | LOE | Follow-up, Mean ± SD, mo | No. of Patients | Initial Rotator Cuff Tear Size,b cm | Degree of Fatty Infiltrationc | Repair Integrity via Sugaya Classification | Retears, n (%) | Location of Rotator Cuff Failure, Type 1/Type 2 | Imaging Modalityd | Time From Surgery to Imaging, mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knotless TOE | |||||||||||
| Boyer et al5 (2015) | Pro | 3 | 21 | 35 | 13 B1, 17 B2, 5 B3 | ≤G1 | Y | 6 (17) | 6/0 | MRI, CT | 13 |
| Ide et al26 (2015) | Retro | 3 | 81 | 36 | 2.1 ± 0.9 (1.0-3.5) | ≤G2 | — | 5 (14) | — | MRI | 12.8 |
| Hug et al25 (2015) | Retro | 3 | 24.4 ± 4.7 | 22 | 1-5 | 1.40 ± 0.34 | Y | 5 (23) | 3/2 | MRI | 24.4 |
| Kim et al30 (2014) | Retro | 3 | 6.21 | 61 | 1-4 | — | Y | 22 (36) | 12/9e | MRI | 6.2 |
| Werthel et al73 (2014) | Retro | 3 | 19.0 ± 4.2 | 32 | 14 B1, 17 B2, 1 B3 | ≤G2 | Y | 2 (6) | — | MRI | 19 |
| Rhee et al57 (2012) | Pro | 2 | 21.2 | 51 | 1-3 | G0-G4 | — | 3 (6) | — | MRI | 6.8 |
| El-Azab et al17 (2010) | Pro | 2 | 14 | 20 | — | G1-G3 | — | 4 (20) | — | MRI | 14 |
| Knot-tying TOE | |||||||||||
| Boyer et al5 (2015) | Pro | 3 | 29 | 38 | 12 B1, 22 B2, 4 B3 | ≤G1 | Y | 9 (24) | 7/2 | MRI, CT | 13 |
| Shin et al61 (2015) | Retro | 3 | 34.1 ± 8.9 | 37 | 1.67 ± 0.42 | — | — | 3 (8) | — | MRI | 6 |
| Wang et al72 (2015) | RCT | 1 | 4 | 30 | 13.70 ± 3.27 | — | Y | 9 (30) | — | MRI | 4 |
| Choi et al11 (2014) | Retro | 3 | 31.2 | 147 | 94 (63.9%) D2, 38 (25.9%) D3, 15 (10.2%) D4 | G0-G4 | Y | 25 (17) | 5/20 | MRI | 23.4 |
| Hug et al25 (2015) | Retro | 3 | 24.4 ± 4.7 | 20 | 1-5 | — | Y | 5 (25) | 1/4 | MRI | 24.4 |
| Kim et al31 (2014)f | Retro | 3 | 36 | 21 | — | — | — | 2 (10) | — | US, MRI | 32.4 |
| Kim et al31 (2014)f | Retro | 3 | 35.3 | 16 | — | — | — | 0 (0) | — | US, MRI | 21.9 |
| McCormick et al44 (2014) | Retro | 3 | 48 | 19 | 3.30 ± 0.74 | ≤G2 | Y | 2 (11) | — | MRI | 48.8 |
| Park et al47 (2014)g | Retro | 3 | 24 | 42 | 3.87 ± 0.64 | 1.6 ± 0.7 | — | 8 (19) | 4/4 | US | 24 |
| Park et al47 (2014)g | Retro | 3 | 24 | 53 | 3.44 ± 0.52 | 0.8 ± 0.7 | — | 9 (17) | 2/7 | US | 24 |
| Park et al53 (2014) | Retro | 3 | 5.7 | 103 | 1-5 | — | — | 7 (7) | — | MRI | 6 |
| Ryu et al58 (2015) | Pro | 2 | 58 | 34 | 2.91 ± 1.46 | 0.69 ± 0.40 | Y | 8 (24) | — | MRI | 8.2 |
| Anakwenze et al1 (2013) | Retro | 3 | 13.3 | 69 | 3-5 | ≤G2 | — | 4 (6) | — | — | N/A |
| Haneveld et al24 (2013) | Retro | 3 | 28.4 ± 8.9 | 36 | 1-5 | — | Y | 13 (36) | — | MRI | 28.4 |
| Kim et al29 (2013) | Pro | 2 | 31 | 26 | 2.15 (1.2-4.0) | — | Y | 3 (12) | 2/1 | US, MRI | 27.9 |
| Kim et al33 (2013) | Pro | 2 | 26.6 | 32 | >3 | 0.97 ± 0.48 | Y | 2 (6) | — | MRI | 26.6 |
| Lee et al36 (2013) | Retro | 3 | 27.4 | 62 | 11 D1, 47 D2, 4 D3 | 0.73 ± 0.57 | Y | 30 (48) | — | MRI | 27.4 |
| Neyton et al46 (2013) | CS | 4 | 16.1 | 107 | <3 | ≤G2 | Y | 11 (10) | 10/1 | MRI | 16.1 |
| Park et al48 (2013) | Retro | 3 | 25.1 | 119 | 68 D2, 51 D3 | — | — | — | — | — | N/A |
| Park et al49 (2013) | CS | 4 | 37.6 ± 8.9 | 36 | >5 | 1.3 ± 0.6 (0.3-2.7) | — | 9 (25) | — | US | 24 |
| Tudisco et al68 (2013) | Retro | 3 | 38.9 ± 2.3 | 20 | 1-3 | — | — | 5 (25) | 0/5 | MRI | 38.9 |
| Choi et al10 (2012) | CS | 4 | 28 | 41 | 3 D1, 23 D2, 11 D3, 4 D4 | 33 G1-G2, 6 G3-G4 | — | 8 (20) | 5/3 | US | 28 |
| Gerhardt et al23 (2012) | Retro | 3 | 23.4 ± 2.9 | 20 | 16 (80%) B2, 4 (20%) B3 | 1.15 ± 0.50 | Y | 5 (25) | — | MRI | 23.4 |
| Cho et al8 (2011) | CS | 4 | 25.2 | 87 | 7 (8%) D1, 41 (47%) D2, 32 (37%) D3, 7 (8%) D4 | G0-G4 | — | 29 (33) | 12/17 | MRI | 8.5 |
| Mihata et al45 (2011) | Retro | 3 | 38.5 | 107 | 67 D1-D2 (1.8 ± 0.5), 40 D3-D4 (4.2 ± 1.2) | G0-G4 | Y | 5 (5) | — | MRI | 32.9 |
| Toussaint et al66 (2011) | CS | 4 | 15 | 154 | 47 (30.3%) P1, 88 (57.4%) P2, 19 (12.3%) P3 | ≤G2 | — | 22 (14) | — | MRI, CT | 15 |
| Park et al50 (2010) | CS | 4 | 12 | 78 | 11 D1, 32 D2, 18 D3, 17 D4 | G0-G4 | — | 7 (9) | — | US | 12 |
| Pennington et al55 (2010) | Retro | 3 | 24 | 37 | 3.40 ± 0.95 | — | Y | 12 (32) | — | MRI | 21 |
| Sethi et al60 (2010) | CS | 4 | 16.1 | 40 | 2.9 (2.5-5.1) | 0.45 ± 0.66 | — | 7 (18) | — | MRI | 16.1 |
| Voigt et al70 (2010) | CS | 4 | 24 | 45 | — | G0-G4 | Y | 13 (29) | 7/6 | MRI | 12 |
| Frank et al18 (2008) | CS | 4 | 14.6 | 25 | — | G0-G4 | — | 3 (12) | — | MRI | 14.6 |
aDashes indicate data not reported. CS, case series; CT, computed tomography; LOE, level of evidence; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; N/A, not applicable; Pro, prospective study; RCT, randomized controlled trial; Retro, retrospective study; TOE, transosseous-equivalent; US, ultrasound; Y, yes.
bInitial rotator cuff tear size in the anteroposterior dimension, reported as No., mean ± SD (range), range, mean ± SD, n (%), mean (range), or mean. B, Bateman classification2 (grade 1 [B1]: <1 cm; grade 2 [B2]: 1-3 cm; grade 3 [B3]: 3-5 cm); D, DeOrio and Cofield classification15 (small [D1]: <1 cm; medium [D2]: 1-3 cm; large [D3]: 3-5 cm; massive [D4]: >5 cm); P, Patte classification54 (type 1 [P1]: “small tears” or retraction of the tendon to the articular surface margin on the humerus; type 2 [P2]: “large tears” or retraction of the tendon between the articular margin of the humerus to the glenoid; type 3 [P3]: “massive tears” or retraction of the tendon to the glenoid or more medial).
c Degree of fatty infiltration, as defined by the 5-stage Goutallier Classification49 (G0, no fatty deposits; G1, some fatty streaks; G2, more muscle than fat; G3, as much muscle as fat; and G4, muscle < fat), or reported as global fatty degeneration index mean ±SD, which is the mean value of 3 muscles’ (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and subscapularis) degree of fatty infiltration.49
dWhen 2 imaging modalities were indicated, the primary modality is listed first.
e1/22 was unable to be classified.
fKim et al31 (2014) listed twice to differentiate between 21 patients with bursal-side lesions and 16 patients with articular-side lesions.
gPark et al47 (2014) listed twice to differentiate between 42 patients with U-shaped tears and 53 patients with L-shaped tears.