Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the gold standard for treatment, but current techniques have shortcomings, especially for larger tears. Single-row repairs often fail to fully restore the footprint, leading to high retear rates. Although triple-row and double-row repairs show promise, concerns regarding retear persist. Biomechanical studies favor triple-row repair for better coverage and pressure distribution. Techniques such as linked double-row and double-pulley methods enhance strength. Secondary cuff failures near the musculotendinous junction are commonly caused by stress concentration. To address these challenges, novel methods have employed linked, knotless, and bridging constructs. Our approach, the double pulley-triple row, aims to minimize retears, especially at the musculotendinous junction, and provides uniform pressure distribution, which is particularly beneficial for large tears. The surgical steps involve standard arthroscopic procedures with specific instruments. Despite these challenges, our method combines proven techniques for optimized outcomes and promising improved results in rotator cuff repair.

Rotator cuff tears are common shoulder injuries that often necessitate surgical intervention, particularly when nonoperative treatments fail. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is the current gold standard; however, challenges, such as high retear rates, especially in large tears, persist. Traditional techniques, such as single-row and double-row repairs, have limitations in fully restoring the anatomical footprint and ensuring optimal healing. This review examines the novel double pulley-triple row technique, which aims to overcome these limitations by enhancing the footprint contact area, load distribution, and tendon healing. By evaluating the double pulley-triple row method in comparison to established techniques, this study explores the potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of rotator cuff repair.

This systematic review evaluates the clinical outcomes of two distinct, arthroscopic techniques for the surgical repair of massive rotator cuff tears; lower trapezius tendon (LTT) transfer and muscle advancement (MA). Methods: Eleven studies, involving 433 patients, selected based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, were analyzed. Results: MA significantly improves functional outcomes, demonstrated by higher Constant-Murley scores (mean difference: 26.26 vs. 18.31, P<0.001), University of California, Los Angeles shoulder scores (14.95 vs. 8.3, P<0.001), acromiohumeral distance (AHD; 1.94 mm vs. 0.40 mm, P<0.001), and greater abduction recovery (46.48° vs. 31.86°, P=0.030). However, visual analog scale score was better reduced in the LTT transfer groups (–3.69 vs. –2.33, P<0.001), with greater external rotation improvement (25.67° vs. 7.74°, P<0.001) and lower retear rates (11.89% vs. 19.42%, P=0.031). The complication profiles differed between techniques: LTT transfer carried a higher risk of graft rupture (2.64% vs. 0%, P=0.031), while arthroscopic MA was associated with increased postoperative stiffness (2.91% vs. 0%, P=0.011). Conclusions: Arthroscopic MA is recommended for younger, active patients with mobile residual tissue to optimize abduction and AHD restoration. In contrast, LTT transfer is better suited for cases involving massive defects requiring dynamic stabilization and external rotation recovery. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized surgical planning that considers tear severity, tissue viability, and patient functional demands. Despite limitations stemming from retrospective study designs and clinical heterogeneity, this review highlights the distinct clinical advantages and appropriate indications for both techniques.

Background: This study aims to investigate the trend of doctor shopping among patients with rotator cuff tear (RCT) before undergoing surgery and to examine the relevance of these findings to the public. Methods: A survey was conducted of 326 patients from 10 hospitals (male, 176; female, 150) who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) for symptomatic RCT between September 2019 and February 2020. A questionnaire was used to obtain data regarding the type of medical care service, medical institutions visited before surgery, number of treatments received, and cost of treatment. Results: A total of 326 patients (87%) received treatment at least once at another medical institution before visiting the hospital where the surgery was performed. Patients visited an average of 9.4 health providers or physicians for shoulder pain before visiting the hospital where surgery was performed. Among the 326 patients, 148 (45%) visited more than two medical institutions and spent an average of 641,983 Korean won (KRW; $466, 50,000–5,000,000 KRW) before surgery. Medical expenses before surgery were proportional to the number of medical institutions visited (P=0.002), symptom duration (P=0.002), and initial visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (P=0.007) but were not associated with sex, age, VAS pain score immediately before surgery, or RCT size. Conclusions Medical expense before ARCR was associated with the severity of preoperative pain and duration of symptoms. After onset of shoulder symptoms, patients should visit as soon as possible a hospital that has surgeons who specialize in shoulder repair to prevent unnecessary medical expense and proper treatment.Level of evidence: IV.