Posterosuperior Tears (Reparable): Arthroscopic Repair—Suture Tunnels
Mark D. Lazarus
INTRODUCTION
Codman was the first to describe open rotator cuff repair (RCR).1 His technique involved the use of sutures passed through transosseous (TO) tunnels, and that technique was long considered the standard. In fact, the longest follow-up data available today pertain to open TO RCR. Using an open TO technique, the authors report a 24-point average improvement in the Constant score, 10% revision surgery rate, and good to excellent outcomes in most patients at 20-year follow-up after massive RCR.2 With the development of suture anchors and, in particular, the transition to all arthroscopic repairs, the TO technique has been largely forgotten. Yet, for as long as surgeons have been performing arthroscopic RCR, instrumentation and methods have existed to complete these repairs without anchors, using traditional TO tunnels. Arthroscopic TO RCR was first introduced in 2002 using a cannulated, sharp, hooked bone-cutting needle through the greater tuberosity. Suture limbs were pulled through the cannulated needle and sliding knots passing through the rotator cuff defect, securing the rotator cuff to bone.3 Since the first generation of arthroscopic TO RCR, multiple devices have been introduced, attempting to facilitate the application of this technique. Regardless of the technique or implant used, the physiologic principles of RCR remained the same: ample fixation strength, minimal gap formation, marrow-element access to the healing interface, and sufficient mechanical stability for tendon-bone healing.
INDICATIONS
The indications for arthroscopic TO RCR are the same as those for anchor-based repairs. The specific indication discussed in this chapter is for posterosuperior RCR, but the technique can also be employed for additional, concomitant procedures such as subscapularis repair or biceps tenodesis (Figure 13-1). As with anchor-based repairs, the same procedure can be employed for more complicated cuff surgeries, such as arthroscopic-assisted muscle transfers (Figure 13-2) and superior capsular reconstruction (Figure 13-3). Hence, a surgeon needs only one instrument to deal with the spectrum of procedures associated with RCR. In addition, there are clinical scenarios that particularly make a TO approach advantageous.
![]() FIGURE 13-1 Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis within the biceps groove using transosseous sutures without anchors, screws, or buttons. |
![]() FIGURE 13-2 Lower trapezial transfer, using transosseous tunnels to repair the Achilles allograft to the greater tuberosity. |
Cuff Tear Size to Exposed Tuberosity Mismatch
Given the small footprint of the supraspinatus insertion, often times there is a mismatch between the size of the rotator cuff tear and the available osseous area in which to place anchors. For a double-row, anchor-based repair, this can be problematic as anchors require a minimum distance (approximately 1 cm) between them in order to maintain integrity. For a TO repair, there is no minimal distance requirement between the medial row tunnels, making it an ideal technique for cases of cuff tear-footprint mismatch.
Revision Rotator Cuff Repair
Revision rotator cuff surgery is often complicated by poor rotator cuff tissue, retained humeral head anchors, and humeral head cysts, particularly if prior anchors are removed (Figure 13-4A-C). These complications can make anchor-based repairs challenging. The TO technique can significantly lessen these challenges. In the case of retained metal anchors, tunnel locations can be chosen to take advantage of the space anterior to, between, and posterior to those anchors, even if that space is not large enough to place another anchor. For retained, nonmetal anchors, tunnels are placed directly through those anchors, without any compromise to typical tunnel strength and integrity. If loose anchors are removed and the result is large humeral head cysts, those cysts can be used as the medial hole for a transosseous tunnel, taking advantage of the intact and typically strong lateral cortex (Figure 13-4D). Finally, if a surgeon chooses to augment a revision repair because of poor tissue quality, the procedure to apply that augment is little different from that of primary TO repair without augmentation (Figure 13-4E).
Greater Tuberosity Cysts/Osteoporosis
Rotator cuff disease is associated with the development of cystic changes in the greater tuberosity. Often, these cysts can be rather large and they can compromise the structural integrity of the greater tuberosity, particularly at the location where medial row anchors would be placed. As with the above-mentioned description for the revision setting, for the TO technique, these cysts can be used as the medial side of the TO tunnel. Similarly, since the technique is less dependent on the strength of the metaphyseal bone of the humeral head, a specific indication is RCR in the osteoporotic patient.4
Need for Later Imaging
There are times preoperative when surgeons may have concerns about a patient’s ability to heal an RCR. A short list of those conditions includes older patients, larger tears, more chronic tears,
patient comorbidities, and patient compliance concerns. There are also scenarios where a patient is less likely to be satisfied after RCR, such as patients with legal or workers compensation claims. In those situations, surgeons may find themselves more likely to require postoperative imaging to document integrity of RCR. The absence of anchors in the humeral head results in postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with little to no artifact. Often, the reading radiologist will not recognize that the patient has had prior surgery (Figure 13-5)!
patient comorbidities, and patient compliance concerns. There are also scenarios where a patient is less likely to be satisfied after RCR, such as patients with legal or workers compensation claims. In those situations, surgeons may find themselves more likely to require postoperative imaging to document integrity of RCR. The absence of anchors in the humeral head results in postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with little to no artifact. Often, the reading radiologist will not recognize that the patient has had prior surgery (Figure 13-5)!
Healing Concerns
It has been long recognized that access of marrow elements to the repaired rotator cuff footprint is important for healing. As such, contemporary anchor design often includes windows or fenestrations within the anchor. Also, surgeons have tried to use smaller anchors, particularly for the medial row of a double-row repair, in order to disrupt as little marrow-to-cuff access as possible. All of these concerns are eliminated in the case of TO repair as the tunnel serves as a conduit for marrow elements.
There is evidence that microvascular blood flow to the RCR footprint is improved with a TO technique as compared with an anchor-based one. Urita et al used ultrasound Doppler imaging to analyze the blood flow at four different regions within the rotator cuff insertion site in patients with anchor-based versus TO repairs. Three of the four locations demonstrated increased vascularity in the TO patients at 1, 2, and 3 months postoperatively5 (Figure 13-6).
Not all rotator cuff retears are created equal. During revision surgery, particularly in a patient with poor tissue quality, managing a type 1 retear from bone is far easier than revising a type 2 midsubstance tear. Kilcoyne et al, in a biomechanical study, suggested that the type 2 retear mechanism is less likely to occur after TO rather than anchor-based RCR.6 For patients who have risk factors for difficulty in healing a primary RCR, this result is yet one more indication for the primary repair to be TO.
Cost Containment
Surgeons should always practice cost-effective care. For in-hospital settings, anchor costs are often treated as an insurance carve-out; so, even though these are substantial costs borne by the healthcare system as a whole, they are hidden from the patient and the surgeon. Yet, anchor costs are the single most important modifiable variable contributing to the overall cost of RCR,7 and a double-row RCR is only more cost-effective than a single row if the cost increase of the additional anchors is less than $287 for small or moderate tears and $352 for large or massive tears.8 For most institutions, this is the cost of a single anchor! When RCR is performed in an ambulatory surgery center, these costs may be borne by the center or even the patient. Since TO repair is performed with one inexpensive, reusable, disposable device, the average cost savings per case are substantial, and these savings are magnified as tear size increases, resulting in an over $1000/case savings for large and massive repairs9,10 (Figure 13-7).
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree











