Comparison of cost, surgical time, and clinical results between arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair with lateral cortical augmentation and arthroscopic transosseous equivalent suture bridge: A propensity score-matched analysis

Background: To reduce the healthcare burden, the clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and the cost of the implants used have recently been focused upon. This study compared implant cost, surgical time, short-term clinical results, and cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively between arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair using lateral cortical augmentation (TOA) and arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent suture bridge (TOE). Methods: This study included 220 patients with rotator cuff repairs performed by a single surgeon between December 2013 and December 2018. Overall, 70 TOA and 68 TOE cases met the inclusion criteria. The same surgeon performed the procedures at two different hospitals, and the techniques differed between the facilities. A total of 42 TOA patients were matched with 42 TOE patients. The patients were matched using a propensity score analysis by gender, age, and cuff tear size. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years. Implant cost and surgical time were compared between the two methods. The range of motion, clinical outcomes, and visual analog scale were evaluated. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to examine cuff repair integrity 2 years postoperatively. Results: The follow-up rate was 81% (112/138 patients). Implant cost was significantly lower with TOA ($1,396 vs. $2,165; p < 0.001) than with TOE. The average surgical time in the TOA method was significantly shorter than that in the TOE method (82 vs. 109 min; p = 0.001). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the mean active elevation, abduction, and clinical outcomes improved with both methods, although no improvements in external and internal rotations were observed with either method. There were no significant differences in the postoperative variables and retear rate (TOA, 12%; TOE, 19%; p = 0.548) between the two methods. Conclusions: TOA and TOE achieved comparable clinical results; however, TOA was more cost-effective and had a shorter surgical time than TOE. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Orthopaedic Association.