Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tears are a common orthopaedic injury often resulting in shoulder pain and functional impairment. Despite the prevalence of rotator cuff tears, the incidence of retear after rotator cuff repair (RCR) remains high. There is growing interest in the use of structural augmentation in RCR to decrease retear rates and improve patient outcomes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and imaging outcomes of structural augmentation versus standard RCR in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The effectiveness of different augment subtypes was also assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in CENTRAL, Embase, and Medline from inception to November 13, 2024. Eligible studies included comparative trials evaluating structural augmentation in RCR for repairable full-thickness tears. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) score for observational studies. Meta-analyses were performed via a random effects model, with subgroup analyses performed by study design and augment type. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (12 randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included in this review, all of which evaluated biologic augments (xenograft, allograft, autograft). Structural augmentation significantly reduced the risk of retear by 35% as compared with standard RCR (risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .01). Retears were confirmed radiographically by magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound. Subgroup analysis revealed the greatest reduction in retear rates with allograft augmentation (risk ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.56). No significant differences were observed in patient-reported outcomes, including pain scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, or Constant scores. CONCLUSION: Structural augmentation in RCR significantly reduces retear rates, particularly with allografts, but does not improve short-term patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to identify which patient and tear characteristics may influence the effectiveness of augmentation.