Bioaugmentation demonstrates similar outcomes and failure rates for arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair compared to revision without bioaugmentation.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) exhibit lower healing rates and inferior outcomes compared to primary repairs. There is limited evidence regarding the use of bioaugmentation in the setting of revision RCRs. Autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) is a promising adjunct that has been shown to improve healing rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the primary setting. In addition, bioinductive patches such as collagen bovine patches have become a popular adjunct for stimulating healing in the primary setting. The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes after use of ACP and collagen bovine patch augmentation for revision arthroscopic RCR. We hypothesized improved PROs and higher healing rates would be observed with bioaugmentation for revision repair compared to without. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, retrospective case-control study from 2 fellowship-trained surgeons that included all consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic revision RCR from 2010 to 2021. Reconstruction such as superior capsular reconstruction, partial revision repair, and less than 1-year follow-up were excluded. The bioaugmentation cohort received ACP and/or collagen bovine patch at the time of revision repair. PROs were collected from all patients including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Assessment Form (ASES), visual analog scale for pain (VAS), Brophy score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mental and physical scores. Failure of revision RCR was defined as an ASES postoperative total score less than 60 or a symptomatic retear confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging. Student's t-test was used for all comparisons of continuous variables. Chi-squared test used for comparison of all categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at <0.05. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria with average follow-up of 3.5 ± 1.7 years. There was no significant difference in follow-up between patients with and without bioaugmentation. Of the 38 patients, 14 patients met failure criteria. There was no significant difference in the rate of failure between the bioaugmentation cohort (6/19, 31.6%) vs. patients who did not receive bioaugmentation (8/19, 42.1%) (P = .74). In addition, no significant differences were identified for ASES (64.6 ± 20.1 vs. 57.5 ± 17.2, P = .32), Brophy (6.4 ± 5.2 vs. 6.0 ± 4.1, P = .84), PROMIS Mental (13.4 ± 3.9 vs. 11.7 ± 3.2), or PROMIS Physical (12.8 ± 3.1 vs. 11.9 ± 3.2) scores between the bioaugmentation vs. no bioaugmentation groups. CONCLUSION: Bioaugmentation with a bioinductive collagen patch or ACP demonstrated similar failure and PROs compared to without bioaugmentation in the setting of revision RCR.

Duke Scholars

Author Robert Theodore Tisherman Orthopaedic Surgery