关节镜下修复巨大肩袖撕裂12例疗效分析

目的分析肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂的临床疗效。方法采用肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂12例。结果 12例均获得随访12个月,术前、术后12个月的Constant-Merly评分为40.3、86.4分,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;UCLA评分为10.6、28.3分,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论应用肩关节镜下双排锚钉缝合固定法修复巨大肩袖撕裂可以取得较好的短期疗效,是一种合理、有效的治疗方法。     

肩关节镜下单排缝合技术与双排缝合桥技术治疗肩袖损伤的临床疗效比较

目的 比较肩关节镜下单排缝合技术与双排缝合桥技术治疗肩袖损伤的临床疗效。方法 本研究采用随机对照设计，共纳入2021年4月至2022年4月于我院就诊的80例肩袖损伤病人，试验组和对照组各40例。试验组采用肩关节镜下双排缝合桥技术，对照组采用肩关节镜下单排缝合技术。病人均在术前、术后3个月、术后6个月、术后1年进行临床及随访评估，记录疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分、Constant-Murley评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）肩关节评分和术后肩袖再撕裂发生率。再分别观察肩袖撕裂直径大小（以3 cm为界）不同的病人中，试验组和对照组之间VAS评分、Constant-Murley评分和UCLA评分的差异。结果 手术前两组病人的VAS评分、Constant-Murley评分和UCLA评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。术后1年随访时，试验组的VAS评分低于对照组，Constant-Murley评分和UCLA评分均高于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。对于肩袖撕裂直径＜3 cm的病人，试验组和对照组之间的VAS评分、Constant-Murley评分和UCLA评分差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；对于肩袖撕裂直径≥3 cm的病人，试验组的VAS评分、Constant-Murley评分和UCLA评分均显著优于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。相比对照组，试验组的再撕裂率更低（7.5% vs. 17.5%），但差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 相比单排缝合技术，肩关节镜下双排缝合桥技术治疗肩袖损伤具有更优的临床疗效。但对于肩袖撕裂直径＜3 cm的病人，单排缝合技术能获得与双排缝合桥技术相似的临床疗效。     

肩袖全层撕裂关节镜术后早期再撕裂相关因素的初步分析及MRI应用评价

目的探讨肩袖全层撕裂患者关节镜下缝合固定术后早期发生再撕裂的因素及MRI的应用价值。方法回顾性分析2015年1月～2017年12月65例肩袖全层撕裂患者关节镜下缝合固定术的临床和MRI资料。对可能影响术后早期再撕裂的年龄、性别、外伤史、吸烟史、糖尿病史、术前肌肉质量、肌肉挛缩程度、撕裂大小、术者、术式进行分析。结果本组65例中,术后3个月5例(7.7%)发生再撕裂(Sugaya分型Ⅳ、Ⅴ型),经单因素分析,术前肌肉质量(OR=21.000,P=0.000)、撕裂大小(OR=10.118,P=0.028)、术式(OR=22.667,P=0.000)对术后早期再撕裂的影响有统计学意义。经趋势χ~2检验,术前肌肉质量(χ~2=13.675,P=0.000)、撕裂大小(χ~2=6.139,P=0.013)与术后早期再撕裂的发生存在一定的线性变化趋势。结论肩袖全层撕裂关节镜下缝合固定术后发生早期再撕裂的主要因素是术前肌肉质量差、大或巨大撕裂以及单排缝合固定,术前肌肉质量越差、撕裂程度越严重的患者发生早期再撕裂的可能性越大;术后3个月的MRI检查可以客观显示再撕裂的发生。     

肩袖修补术后再撕裂危险因素的研究进展

肩袖再撕裂是肩袖修复术后主要的并发症,其严重影响了手术疗效。肩袖再发撕裂的影响因素包括术前年龄、糖尿病、高脂血症、症状持续时间、撕裂大小、肩袖脂肪浸润及回缩、手术方式的选择、生物制剂的应用、术后康复锻炼方案等。本文对关于肩袖修复术后再发撕裂危险因素进行了综述和分析,加深对再撕裂的认识,以期减少肩袖修补术后再次撕裂的发生,促进患者术后功能恢复和满意度。     

肩袖损伤患者关节镜修补术后的预后影响因素分析

目的分析肩袖损伤的患者在接受肩关节镜下肩袖修补手术治疗的预后影响因素。 方法回顾性分析2019年2月至2020年2月于同济大学附属第十人民医院关节外科接受肩关节镜下肩袖修补术治疗肩袖损伤的117例患者的基本资料,术后1年随访手术疗效。 结果预后良好者95例,占81.20%。多因素分析显示,年龄、术前病程、撕裂程度、是否使用富血小板血浆是影响预后的独立因素。 结论患者年龄、术前病程、肩袖撕裂程度、术中是否使用富血小板血浆是影响肩关节镜手术治疗肩袖损伤预后的重要因素。     

肩关节镜下缝线桥技术治疗巨大肩袖撕裂的前瞻性研究

目的 探讨肩关节镜下缝线桥技术治疗巨大肩袖损伤的临床效果。方法 选取我科2018年1月至2020年9月收治的肩袖巨大撕裂病人120例,随机纳入单排缝合组、双排缝合组和缝线桥组,每组40例。比较三组病人治疗前后肩关节疼痛视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale,VAS）评分、肩关节Constant-Murley功能评分、加州大学洛杉矶分校（University of California at Los Angeles,UCLA）肩关节评分和美国肩肘外科协会（American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons,ASES）评分及术后并发症发生情况。结果三组病人术后3个月时VAS评分未见明显统计学差异,但是缝线桥组术后6个月及9个月时VAS评分较单排缝合及双排缝合组明显降低,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）;术后3、6、12、24个月,缝线桥组的Constant-Murley功能评分、UCLA评分和ASES评分均较单排缝合组及双排缝合组明显增高,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）;缝线桥组病人再撕裂发生率较单排缝合组及双排缝合组明显降低,差异...     

关节镜下缝合锚钉加骨隧道缝合方法修复肩袖损伤

目的 探讨肩关节镜下缝合锚钉加骨隧道缝合方法治疗肩袖损伤的手术方法、技巧和疗效.方法 2007年2月-2009年2月,对32例不同类型的肩袖损伤患者,采用关节镜下缝合锚钉加肱骨大结节骨隧道缝合的方法修复肩袖.其中25例全层撕裂,5例滑囊侧部分撕裂,2例关节侧部分撕裂.16例发生于优势侧.术前均拍摄肩关节正位、肩袖出口位X线片,其中11例行MRI检查,21例行MRA检查.全部患者均行肩峰成形与肩峰下滑囊切除,肩袖修复采用单排锚钉固定加经骨隧道穿线缝合18例、双排锚钉加经骨隧道穿线固定14例.按照UCLA肩关节评分标准进行术前和术后功能评估.结果 32例患者获得3～23个月的随访,平均13.4个月.按照UCLA肩关节评分:术前平均为13.3分,术后为33.1分;其中优23例,良9例.术后21例疼痛完全消失,5例偶感轻微疼痛或不适,6例剧烈运动或特殊动作疼痛.24例肩关节活动完全正常.主动前屈及外展角度>150°26例,90°～120°6例.术后前屈及外展肌力M_5 25例,M_47例.所有患者最终对手术效果满意.结论 缝合锚钉加骨隧道穿线缝合是修复肩袖撕裂较好的方法,该技术固定牢靠、保证了肩袖-骨的正常愈合,特别适用于骨质疏松或翻修的病例,值得推广.     

肩关节解剖学因素与肩袖修补术后关节僵硬的相关性分析

目的探讨肩关节解剖学因素与肩袖修补术后关节僵硬的相关性。方法回顾性分析2016年3月至2021年12月于民航总医院骨科行肩袖修补术的肩袖损伤患者212例, 男97例、女115例, 年龄(58.87±9.69)岁(范围41～72岁)。根据术后3个月是否发生关节僵硬分为僵硬组与无僵硬组。采用患者肩关节CT三维重建测量并计算所有患者术前及术后第1天临界肩关节角(critical shoulder angle, CSA)、肩峰指数(acromial index, AI)、肩峰外侧角(lateral acromion angle, LAA), 收集术前和术后3个月肩关节活动度(前屈、外展、外旋)及年龄、性别、病程、体质指数、肩袖肌腱脂肪浸润程度、肩袖撕裂程度、缝合方式、术前是否并发僵硬。比较两组解剖因素及临床特征的差异, 将差异有统计学意义的指标纳入二分类变量logistic回归分析。绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线评估与术后关节僵硬相关因素的预测效能。结果僵硬组43例, 无僵硬组169例。两组年龄、性别、病程、体质指数、肩袖...     

肩关节镜下双排与单排缝合治疗肩袖撕裂的疗效比较

目的 比较肩关节镜下双排与单排缝合治疗肩袖撕裂的临床疗效.方法 研究对象为2016年10月至2019年12月治疗的76例肩袖撕裂患者,36例采用双排缝合技术固定(double row,DR),40例采用单排缝合技术固定(single row,SR).DR组男12例,女24例,平均年龄(58.75±7.32)岁.SR组男...     

关节镜缝合桥与单排技术治疗肩袖撕裂的病例对照研究

目的:比较关节镜缝合桥技术与单排技术治疗肩袖撕裂的疗效。方法:回顾性分析采用关节镜缝合桥技术与单排技术治疗肩袖撕裂患者的资料,其中缝合桥固定组22例,单排组21例,采用疼痛目测评分(PVAS)、肩关节活动度、美国肩肘外科评分(ASES)、加州大学肩关节评分(UCLA)、复旦大学肩关节评分(FUSS评分)及Constant评分比较两组术前、术后第3 d、术后6月情况,并对术后6月撕裂肩袖的完整性及再撕裂率进行评估。结果:43例均获得随访,缝合桥固定组术后第3 d、术后6月PVAS评分分别为(2.41±1.05)分、(1.12±0.21)分,ASES评分分别为(13.29±1.57)分、(17.33±2.34)分,UCLA评分分别为(23.67±3.07)分、(33.61±3.64)分,Constant评分分别为(76.24±7.36)分、(87.96±8.49)分,FUSS评分分别为(75.43±12.06)分、(88.46±13.07)分,肩关节活动度前屈(160.28±11.57)?、外展(159.38±17.26)?、体侧外旋(48.08±1.81)?,这两时间点各指标值与术前比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);单排组术后第3 d、术后6月PVAS评分分别为(3.52±1.31)分、(2.07±0.35)分,ASES评分分别为(10.25±1.18)分、(15.28±2.17)分,UCLA评分分别为(17.35±3.44)分、(28.57±3.52)分,Constant评分分别为(68.33±7.18)分、(78.69±8.05)分,FUSS评分分别为(68.25±11.36)分、(78.93±12.58)分,肩关节活动度前屈(154.63±12.08)?、外展(148.16±18.57)?、体侧外旋(43.18±10.06)?,这两时间点各指标值与术前比较,差异也有统计学意义(P0.05);缝合桥固定组术后第3 d和术后6月各指标值均高于单排组(P0.05);术后6月,缝合桥固定组2例(9.09%)、单排组3例(14.29%)发生肩袖再撕裂(P=1.000)。结论:关节镜缝合桥技术与单排技术均能治疗肩袖撕裂,前者在肩关节功能活动方面更具有优势,且安全性高,但在复发率方面无明显差异。     

Clinical and Radiological Evaluation after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Using Suture Bridge Technique

Background

We retrospectively assessed the clinical outcomes and investigated risk factors influencing retear after arthroscopic suture bridge repair technique for rotator cuff tear through clinical assessment and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA).

Methods

Between January 2008 and April 2011, sixty-two cases of full-thickness rotator cuff tear were treated with arthroscopic suture bridge repair technique and follow-up MRA were performed. The mean age was 56.1 years, and mean follow-up period was 27.4 months. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed using range of motion, Korean shoulder score, Constant score, and UCLA score. Radiological outcome was evaluated with preoperative and follow-up MRA. Potential predictive factors that influenced cuff retear, such as age, gender, geometric patterns of tear, size of cuff tear, acromioplasty, fatty degeneration, atrophy of cuff muscle, retraction of supraspinatus, involved muscles of cuff and osteolysis around the suture anchor were evaluated.

Results

Thirty cases (48.4%) revealed retear on MRA. In univariable analysis, retear was significantly more frequent in over 60 years age group (62.5%) than under 60 years age group (39.5%; p = 0.043), and also in medium to large-sized tear than small-sized tear (p = 0.003). There was significant difference in geometric pattern of tear (p = 0.015). In multivariable analysis, only age (p = 0.036) and size of tear (p = 0.030) revealed a significant difference. The mean active range of motion for forward flexion, abduction, external rotation at the side and internal rotation at the side were significantly improved at follow-up (p < 0.05). The mean Korean shoulder score, Constant score, and UCLA score increased significantly at follow-up (p < 0.01). The range of motion, Korean shoulder score, Constant score, and UCLA score did not differ significantly between the groups with retear and intact repairs (p > 0.05). The locations of retear were insertion site in 10 cases (33.3%) and musculotendinous junction in 20 cases (66.7%; p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Suture bridge repair technique for rotator cuff tear showed improved clinical results. Cuff integrity after repair did not affect clinical results. Age of over 60 years and size of cuff tear larger than 1 cm were factors influencing rotator cuff retear after arthroscopic suture bridge repair technique.     

两种不同术式治疗合并肩胛上神经损伤的巨大肩袖撕裂后神经恢复的临床对比研究

目的对比传统双排修复术与阔筋膜移植术两种术式治疗合并肩胛上神经损伤的巨大肩袖撕裂患者的功能恢复情况。 方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2018年1月因巨大肩袖撕裂损伤于本院行关节镜肩袖损伤修复术患者20例,其中传统双排缝合组（A组）10例,阔筋膜移植组（B组）10例。所有患者术前均经肩关节MRI及肌电图诊断为巨大肩袖损伤合并神经损伤。术后1个月、6个月定期随访患者。比较手术前后两组患者的疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）、美国加州大学洛杉矶分校（University of California at Los Angeles,UCLA）评分、Constant-Murely肩关节功能评分的变化情况。术后6个月复查肌电图及MRI评估肩袖愈合及神经恢复情况。 结果20例患者均获得随访,随访时间6~18个月。术后6个月A组VAS评分从术前（7.4±0.8）分下降到（2.3±1.7）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）,UCLA评分从术前（11.5±1.4）分上升到（28.3±5.8）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）,Constant-Murely评分从术前（45.6±6.2）分上升到（79.0±11.7）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。B组VAS评分从术前（7.9±0.6）分下降到（2.7±1.8）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）,UCLA评分从术前（10.1±1.4）分上升到（26.9±6.9）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）,Constant-Murely评分从术前（39.0±3.4）分上升到（72.9±9.4）分,差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。术后6个月时两组患者VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,两组患者UCLA评分比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,两组患者Constant-Murely评分比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。术后6个月复查肌电图,A组患者无肩胛上神经损伤,B组患者中有5例患者仍有肩胛上神经损伤（P<0.01）。 结论关节镜下巨大肩袖损伤传统双排修复术及阔筋膜移植术均能改善患者肩关节功能,双排缝合对于肩胛上神经功能恢复的短期效果要比阔筋膜移植组好,但再撕裂可能性大。     

Editorial Commentary: Revision Surgery After Symptomatic Failed Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: What Factors Affect Primary Surgery?

Anteroposterior tear length, hyperlipidemia, and muscle fatty degeneration lead to retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and to subsequent revision surgery. The challenge is to develop methods to prevent these adverse effects after surgery.     

Long-term outcome and structural integrity following open repair of massive rotator cuff tears

Background:

Surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears is associated with less favorable clinical results and a higher retear rate than repair of smaller tears, which is attributed to irreversible degenerative changes of the musculotendinous unit.

Materials and Methods:

During the study period, 25 consecutive patients with a massive rotator cuff tear were enrolled in the study and the tears were repaired with an open suture anchor repair technique. Preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments were performed with the Constant score, the simple shoulder test (SST) and a pain visual analog scale (VAS). At the final follow-up, rotator cuff strength measurement was evaluated and assessment of tendon integrity, fatty degeneration and muscle atrophy was done using a standardized magnetic resonance imaging protocol.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 70 months. The mean constant score improved significantly from 42.3 to 73.1 points at the final follow-up. Both the SST and the pain VAS improved significantly from 5.3 to 10.2 points and from 6.3 to 2.1, respectively. The overall retear rate was 44% after 6 years. Patients with an intact repair had better shoulder scores and rotator cuff strength than those with a failed repair, and also the retear group showed a significant clinical improvement (each P<0.05). Rotator cuff strength in all testing positions was significantly reduced for the operated compared to the contralateral shoulder. Muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff muscles did not recover in intact repairs, whereas both parameters progressed in retorn cuffs.

Conclusions:

Open repair of massive rotator tears achieved high patient satisfaction and a good clinical outcome at the long-term follow-up despite a high retear rate. Also, shoulders with retorn cuffs were significantly improved by the procedure. Muscle atrophy and fatty muscle degeneration could not be reversed after repair and rotator cuff strength still did not equal that of the contralateral shoulder after 6 years.

Level of evidence:

Level IV     

关节镜下"三角布钉"结合改良Mason-Allen技术治疗巨大"L"或"U"型肩袖损伤

目的评估在关节镜下"三角布钉"结合改良Mason-Aallen技术在临床中治疗巨大"L"或"U"型肩袖损伤的疗效。 方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年1月，西安交通大学附属红会医院收治的86例巨大"L"或"U"型肩袖损伤患者临床资料，其中男56例、女30例；年龄40 ~ 65岁，平均（52.5±2.5）岁。根据DeOrio和Cofield分型巨大肩袖损伤，且为"L"或"U"型。应用关节镜下"三角布钉"结合改良Mason-Allen技术治疗，记录肩关节活动度及并发症，手术前后采用Constant评分及视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale,VAS）评价肩关节功能。 结果术前症状持续时间1 ~ 23个月，平均（6.2±2.5）个月；86例患者均获24 ~ 72个月随访，平均（29.3±4.5）个月；均无感染等并发症；术后12个月随访时超声检查，75例肩袖完整，8例部分损伤，3例出现全层撕裂后再次行关节镜手术治疗；末次随访肩关节活动度：前屈（170.7±3.5）°，外展（155.8±3.8）°，外旋（39.4±3.4）°，内旋（40.5±3.3）°；Constant评分由术前（31.2±1.2）分提高至术后（82.5±3.2）分（P<0.05）；VAS由术前（7.8±3.2）分减少至术后（1.3±0.5）分（P<0.05）。 结论关节镜下"三角布钉"结合改良Mason-Allen技术治疗巨大肩袖损伤有效，便于操作，可以减轻疼痛，改善肩关节功能，对于治疗巨大"L"或"U"型肩袖损伤是一种新的选择方法，值得临床推广。     

骨质疏松对肩袖损伤修复的影响研究进展

老年人群因合并有不同程度的骨质疏松,肩袖损伤修复再撕裂率高。为解决这一难题,手术医师尝试通过增加锚钉初始固定强度、改变局部骨质情况等方法来降低这类患者肩袖损伤的再撕裂率。组织工程学的快速发展也使生长因子的辅助应用成为可能。但在目前的临床工作中,合并有骨质疏松的肩袖损伤修复仍然是临床工作者面临的一个巨大挑战。如何更好地增加锚钉固定强度,改善腱骨愈合微环境,降低肩袖再撕裂率成为了近年来的研究热点。本文从骨质疏松与肩袖损伤的关系、骨质疏松对肩袖腱骨愈合的影响及目前采用的减少骨质疏松对腱骨愈合的不同方法3个方面进行综述,以便更好地指导临床治疗,提高患者的手术效果及术后满意率。     

Medial-Row Failure After Arthroscopic Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair

We report 4 cases of medial-row failure after double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) without arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASAD), in which there was pullout of mattress sutures of the medial row and knots were caught between the cuff and the greater tuberosity. Between October 2006 and January 2008, 49 patients underwent double-row ARCR. During this period, ASAD was not performed with ARCR. Revision arthroscopy was performed in 8 patients because of ongoing symptoms after the index operation. In 4 of 8 patients the medial rotator cuff failed; the tendon appeared to be avulsed at the medial row, and there were exposed knots on the bony surface of the rotator cuff footprint. It appeared that the knots were caught between the cuff and the greater tuberosity. Three retear cuffs were revised with the arthroscopic transtendon technique, and one was revised with a single-row technique after completing the tear. ASAD was performed in all patients. Three of the four patients showed improvement of symptoms and returned to their preinjury occupation. Impingement of pullout knots may be a source of pain after double-row rotator cuff repair.     

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: How to Avoid Retear

A healed rotator cuff repair results in a superior outcome for the patient compared with a non-healed repair. The surgeon can maximize the chance of a healed repair by knowing the end-point of each key step in the repair process and adhering to a few core principles. First, the rotator cuff tear pattern (e.g. crescent, L-tear, reverse L-tear, U-tear) must be recognized, starting with careful assessment of preoperative MRI but concluding with the arthroscopic assessment of tear edge mobility. Second, a low-tension, anatomic, and mechanically robust repair construct (e.g. linked, double row; load-sharing rip stop; margin convergence to bone) must be determined based on the tear pattern. Increasingly, surgeons are recognizing the importance of the superior capsule of the shoulder, which can appear as a separate pathoanatomic structure in a delaminated rotator cuff tear and require independent suturing in the repair construct. Third, the biological healing capacity of the repair site must be optimized by using meticulous preparation of the greater tuberosity bone, including removal of soft tissue remnants, light burring, and creation of bone vents. Finally, avoid aggressive early rehabilitation after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair respecting that tendon to bone healing is unlikely to occur before 12 weeks postoperatively. Sling immobilization and judicious use of early passive motion should be used for the first 6 weeks, with passive shoulder range of motion performed during weeks 6-12 postoperatively. Rotator cuff strengthening, and active overhead use of the arm should be delayed until at least 12 weeks after surgery to minimize the risk of retear.     

Magnetic resonance imaging of arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair

BACKGROUND: While a number of studies have documented the very good clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, very few authors have specifically assessed cuff integrity, supraspinatus atrophy, and fatty infiltration and their influence on the clinical outcome. METHODS: We evaluated fifty-three consecutive patients (average age, 60.9 years) who had undergone arthroscopic repair of an isolated supraspinatus tendon tear. After an average duration of follow-up of 26.4 months, all patients were evaluated clinically with use of the Constant score and underwent standardized magnetic resonance imaging at our institution. The preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance images were evaluated by two independent observers who were blinded to the clinical outcome of the patient. Evaluation criteria were cuff integrity; atrophy of the supraspinatus; and fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and subscapularis. These findings were correlated to the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Regardless of the tendon integrity, every parameter of the Constant score was significantly improved after the repair. The overall average Constant score was improved from 53.5 to 83.4 points (p < 0.001). The retear rate in our series was 25% (thirteen of fifty-three). Patients who had a retear had significantly less abduction strength (p = 0.043) and a significantly lower total Constant score (p = 0.012) than those who had an intact repair. A higher degree of preoperative supraspinatus atrophy and Stage-2 fatty infiltration of the supraspinatus were positive predictors of a retear. Also, an older age was an important predictor of a retear (p = 0.011). Progression of structural changes in the rotator cuff was halted when the repair remained intact, but there was no significant reversal of fatty infiltration or muscle atrophy. When the repairs failed, there was significant progression of fatty infiltration and atrophy of the supraspinatus. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and structural results of arthroscopic repairs of isolated supraspinatus tears are equal to those reported following open repair. Fatty infiltration and muscle atrophy cannot be reversed by successful arthroscopic repair. Higher degrees of muscular atrophy and fatty infiltration preoperatively are associated with recurrence of the tear as well as progression of fatty infiltration and muscular atrophy and an inferior clinical result.