Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using Margin Convergence Versus Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Should Candidates for Margin Convergence Be Treated With Superior Capsular Reconstruction?

Background:Both margin convergence rotator cuff repair (MC-RCR) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) result in improved clinical outcomes in the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs). The question remains whether it is better to perform MC-RCR using native, albeit occasionally deficient, tissues or to perform primary SCR.Purpose/Hypothesis:To compare the clinical results of MC-RCR versus SCR for the treatment of massive RCTs. It was hypothesized that SCR would yield better outcomes.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Included were patients who underwent arthroscopic MC-RCR or SCR for massive RCTs performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019. MC-RCR was performed if it was technically possible to close the defect; otherwise, SCR was performed. Outcomes were assessed at 6 months and then annually using American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation; shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand; 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary; and patient satisfaction scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared between groups. Revision surgeries and complications were reported.Results:Included were 46 patients in the MC-RCR group (mean age, 59 ± 8 years) and 46 patients in the SCR group (mean age, 57 ± 7 years); 29 patients in each group were available at 2-year follow-up. Preoperative outcome scores were not significantly different between groups. Within groups, all outcome scores improved from pre- to postoperatively ( P < .05), with no significant differences in postoperative scores or patient satisfaction between groups. No significant between-group differences were noted in the percentage of patients who reached the MCID, SCB, and PASS (MCID, 92.3% vs 84.6%; SCB, 80.8% vs 80.8%; and PASS, 66.7% vs 66.7%). SCR had a significantly lower survivorship rate compared with MC-RCR (84.7% vs 100%) ( P = .026).Conclusion:Both MC-RCR and SCR provided similar improvement in outcomes; however, SCR resulted in a significantly lower survivorship rate at 2 years postoperatively. If an RCT is technically repairable, we recommend that it be repaired primarily, even if MC techniques are needed to close the defect. SCR remains a good option for massive RCTs that are not technically repairable.