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: The morphology of the suprascapular notch (SSN) and the ossification of the superior transverse suprascapular ligament (STSL) are risk factors for injury of the suprascapular nerve (SN) during arthroscopic shoulder procedures. The purpose of the current study was to compare preoperative clinical and radiologic characteristics between patients with and without STSL ossification and to evaluate SSN morphology in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using a 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed model. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and were given a computed tomography (CT) scan from March 2018 to August 2019 were included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those without STSL ossification (group I) and those with STSL ossification (group II). Tear size of the rotator cuff and fatty infiltration of rotator cuff muscles were assessed in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. The morphology of the SSN was classified following Rengachary’s classification. The transverse and vertical diameters of the SSN and the distances from anatomical landmarks to the STSL were measured. All measurements were completed using a 3D CT reconstructed scapula model. Results: A total of 200 patients were included in this study. One hundred seventy-eight patients (89.0%) without STSL ossification were included in group I, and 22 patients (11.0%) with STSL ossification were included in group II. Group II showed a significantly advanced age (61.0 ± 7.4 vs. 71.0 ± 7.3 years, p < 0.001) and a shorter transverse diameter of SSN (10.7 ± 3.1 mm vs. 6.1 ± 3.7 mm, p < 0.001) than group I. In the logistic regression analysis, age was an independent prognostic factor for STSL ossification (odds ratio, 1.201; 95% confidence interval, 1.112–1.296; p < 0.001). Patients in type VI showed significantly shorter transverse diameters than other types (p < 0.001). The patient with type I showed a significantly shorter distance from the articular surface of the glenoid to the SSN than those with other types (p < 0.001). Conclusions In the 3D morphological analysis, age was the independent factor associated with STSL ossification in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Type VI showed significantly shorter transverse diameters than other types. Type I showed a significantly shorter distance from the articular surface of the glenoid to the SSN than other types.