Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a tape-attached anchor: The HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE. We hypothesised that performing arthroscopic r...Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a tape-attached anchor: The HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE. We hypothesised that performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with tape-attached anchors would result in better clinical outcomes and reduce the retear rate compared with conventional suture anchors. Methods: We included 83 patients treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a minimum 1-year follow-up. We divided them into two groups: Use of the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE (group T: 41 shoulders;mean patient age, 64.3 years) and use of the conventional suture anchor (group S: 42 shoulders;mean patient age, 68.9 years). We compared the University of California Los Angeles scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, range of motion, and retear rate between the two groups. The Student t test and chi-square test were used in statistical analyses. Results: At the 1-year postoperative follow-up, both groups showed improvement in the average University of California Los Angeles score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and range of motion, although no significant difference was found in the retear rate between the two groups. Conclusions: Results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE were generally good. However, our results could not demonstrate efficacy of the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE. Further detailed studies are needed to determine its treatment result.展开更多
文摘Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a tape-attached anchor: The HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE. We hypothesised that performing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with tape-attached anchors would result in better clinical outcomes and reduce the retear rate compared with conventional suture anchors. Methods: We included 83 patients treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a minimum 1-year follow-up. We divided them into two groups: Use of the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE (group T: 41 shoulders;mean patient age, 64.3 years) and use of the conventional suture anchor (group S: 42 shoulders;mean patient age, 68.9 years). We compared the University of California Los Angeles scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, range of motion, and retear rate between the two groups. The Student t test and chi-square test were used in statistical analyses. Results: At the 1-year postoperative follow-up, both groups showed improvement in the average University of California Los Angeles score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and range of motion, although no significant difference was found in the retear rate between the two groups. Conclusions: Results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE were generally good. However, our results could not demonstrate efficacy of the HEALICOILRG with ULTRATAPE. Further detailed studies are needed to determine its treatment result.
