Fatty Infiltration, Tear Size, and Retraction Size Are Significant Risk Factors for Retear After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the consistency and quality of risk factor reporting for rotator cuff repair (RCR) retear and identify risk factors most frequently associated with retear.

Methods: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Of the initial 3,158 studies, a total of 31 met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding RCR failure, (2) arthroscopic procedures involving RCR, (3) reporting of clinical outcomes, (4) publication within the past 5 years, and (5) studies investigating preoperative risk factors for retear. After full-text review, 18 risk factors were analyzed.

Results: The most consistently significant risk factors were acromiohumeral distance (80%), critical shoulder angle (67%), tear size (63%), anterior-posterior dimension (60%), fatty infiltration (FI) (58%), and retraction size (56%). FI was analyzed using different methods among studies, with 63% finding significant results and 50% of all studies performing ordinal analysis. Tear size was inconsistently analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively, with 58% of studies finding significant results and 63% of all studies performing quantitative analysis. Risk factors consistently found to be nonsignificant included age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index.

Conclusions: Tear size, FI, and retraction size were found to be significant risk factors in most of the included studies evaluating rotator cuff retear. Risk factors less likely reported as predictive included repair technique, age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index. Risk factors that require further investigation include critical shoulder angle, acromiohumeral distance, and anterior-posterior tear dimension.

Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.