Skip to main content

“Functional outcomes and MRI-based tendon healing after (antero-) superior rotator cuff repair among patients under 50 years: retrospective analysis of traumatic versus non-traumatic rotator cuff tears”



Rotator cuff tears among patients under 50 years either result from an adequate trauma or are considered non-traumatic due to work-related or athletic overuse. The impact of these different mechanisms on postoperative functional outcomes and tendon healing has not yet been fully understood. Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to investigate the influence of etiology of (antero-)superior rotator cuff tears on postoperative outcomes and the healing rates after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in a young patient population.


Patients under 50 years who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between 2006–2017 for an anterosuperior rotator cuff tear with a minimum follow up of 24 months were included in this study. Revision surgeries or reconstructive concomitant procedures other than long head of the biceps tenodesis were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups according to the etiology of their rotator cuff tear (traumatic vs. non-traumatic). Demographic and outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Constant Score (CS), bilateral strength measurements and postoperative tendon integrity evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were assessed and compared between both groups.


The mean follow up for this study was 55.6 months (24 – 158). Twenty-one patients (50.0%) had a traumatic RCT and 21 patients (50.0%) had a non-traumatic tear. Outcome scores did not differ significantly between groups. Strength measurements of the supraspinatus revealed significantly decreased force of the affected side as opposed to the contralateral side (p = 0.001), regardless of etiology. Retear rates were similar in both groups (37.5% and 33.3%, p = n.s.). Cuff integrity at follow-up was not predictive of superior scores or strength.


Surgical treatment of traumatic and non-traumatic RCT yields good clinical results in patients under the age of 50. The etiology of the rotator cuff tear did not significantly affect postoperative outcomes or healing rates. About one third of the patients suffered from a retear postoperatively, however retears were not predictive of inferior outcomes at midterm follow-up.

Study design

Level III.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

Peer Review reports


Rotator cuff tears are a frequent and potentially disabling pathology of the shoulder, not seldomly requiring surgical intervention [1,2,3,4]. While postoperative results are promising [5,6,7] both after open and arthroscopic reconstruction, patients’ outcomes can be affected by several risk factors, including increased preoperative tear size and fatty muscle infiltration, comorbidities and surgical repair techniques [1, 8,9,10,11,12]. Furthermore, patients’ age and the tear etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) have been argued to affect postoperative tendon healing and outcome scores, however there remains uncertainty about the extent to which these two factors influence postoperative results [2, 13, 14].

Even though older age has been associated with increased tear and retear rates, potentially due to a changed biologic environment and thus inferior healing capacities [2, 13], postoperative subjective outcomes have been comparable to those reached by younger patients [3, 7, 15]. Furthermore, while traumatic tears theoretically have a superior healing potential and thus could yield better postoperative subjective outcomes compared to non-traumatic tears [14, 16], recent studies were unable to find such a difference with regard to the etiology of the rotator cuff tear [17,18,19]. Unfortunately, some heterogeneity regarding age and etiology in previous studies’ render the analysis of these aspects difficult. To better analyze and understand the effect of age and etiology, a separate evaluation is necessary. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes and MRI-based healing rates among patients under the age of 50 years, and to detect potential differences with respect to the etiology of the initial rotator cuff tear. The secondary purpose was to correlate clinical outcomes to MRI findings (healed tendons vs. retear) at follow up. It was hypothesized that postoperative outcomes would ultimately differ with regard to the etiology of the RCT and tendon integrity at follow-up.


This was a retrospective cohort study with ethical approval granted by the institution’s ethics committee (17/19 S-AS) and informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to participation. All patients younger than 50 years of age at the time of surgery who underwent rotator cuff repair for a symptomatic full thickness supraspinatus (SSP) or combined anterosuperior (supraspinatus and subscapularis) tear between 2006 and 2017 were included. Additionally, patients suffering from high grade partial thickness tears (Ellman [20] A/B 2 or 3) who underwent intraoperative completion and subsequent repair were also included. Surgery was indicated in the case of persisting or worsening of symptoms despite physical therapy during 3–6 months or upon patients´ explicit wish. The minimum postoperative follow up was 24 months. Patients with revision surgeries of the rotator cuff, concomitant pathologies (e.g. shoulder dislocations, fractures, stiff shoulders, calcified tendons), or additional reconstructive procedures (e.g. glenohumeral or acromioclavicular joint stabilization, arthrolysis) were excluded. Patients with preoperative signs of cuff tear arthropathy > 2 according to the Hamada classification [21] or glenohumeral osteoarthritis > 1 according to Samilson&Prieto [22] were also excluded from participation. Patients with a history of contralateral rotator cuff injury or reconstructive surgery were excluded from bilateral comparisons (e.g. force measurements).

For the purpose of this study and to test for our hypothesis, patients were divided into two different groups based on the etiology of the initial rotator cuff tear. Etiologies were grouped as either traumatic or non-traumatic. RCT were considered to be traumatic in case of an acute onset of symptoms after an adequate trauma (e.g. shearing of the tendons on the glenoid rim, when the maximal tolerated rotation angle is exceeded, passively forced external or internal rotation and abduction with a massive overstretching of anterocranial or posterocranial structures, axial compression and passive traction) to a previously asymptomatic and uninjured shoulder as described previously in the literature [14]. Correspondingly, rotator cuff tears without an adequate trauma or with a gradual onset of symptoms were considered non-traumatic, degenerative rotator cuff tears.

Data collection

For each participating patient, demographic data (age, sex, affected side, arm dominance), medical and surgical information such as comorbidities, the affected tendon, surgical technique (single row vs. double row), concomitant injuries and procedures were gathered from hospital records. At final follow up, patient-reported outcome measures including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and the Constant Score (CS) were collected. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess for pain. A standardized physical examination of the ipsilateral and contralateral shoulder was carried out by one of the authors (blinded for review). Examination included the assessment of passive and active glenohumeral range of motion using a goniometer and standard clinical testing for the rotator cuff. Force measurement of the affected muscles (supraspinatus and/or subscapularis muscle) was performed using a previously validated commercially available measuring device and calibration software (PCE-FB 5 K; PCE-Instruments GmbH, Germany) for analog-to-digital conversion and recording of the force data (sampling frequency, 40 Hz) [23, 24]. An Isobex isometric dynamometer (Cursor-AG, Switzerland) was used to assess supraspinatus strength and a custom-made force measuring plate was used for subscapularis muscle testing. Strength measurement (N) of the supraspinatus muscle was carried out according to the manufacturer’s instruction in a sitting position, with the arm positioned correspondingly to the Jobe test (90° abduction, 30° of flexion in the scapular plane with the hand in pronation). For isolated assessment of the subscapularis muscle, peak strength (N) of internal rotation was measured with the hand placed on the force measuring plate in the belly-press position.

Before supervised measurements, all patients were instructed on how to use the Isobex dynamometer and the force-measuring plate. Force measurements consisted of three consecutive measurements for the ipsilateral and contralateral side each. For final analysis, the mean values were calculated.

Radiological Evaluation

In order to assess tendon integrity and fatty degeneration after rotator cuff repair, a high resolution 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the affected shoulder was performed at final follow up using a whole-body scanner (Ingenia, Philips Healthcare, Netherlands) for all patients. For radiologic evaluation, patients were in a supine position with their arm in neutral position. Imaging consisted of a standardized protocol including oblique sagittal, oblique coronal, and transverse planes in T1- and T2-weighted scans. All images were transferred on picture archiving communication system workstations (PACS, Easy Vision, Philips, Netherlands). Final MRI evaluation was carried out independently by two orthopedic surgeons (blinded for review).

Preoperative supraspinatus tears were classified according to the Patte classification [25] and subscapularis tears were classified according to the Fox & Romeo classification [26]. Postoperative tendon integrity was graded according to the Sugaya classification [27]. Tendons were judged as healed in cases of Sugaya types I-III. Tendons were considered as re-torn/not healed in cases of Sugaya types IV and V. Fatty degeneration of the affected muscles was assessed according to the Goutailler classification modified by Fuchs et al. [28]. For validity purposes, MR images were evaluated twice at an interval of 2 months and interrater/intrarater reliabilities were calculated. In the case of disagreements, grading was re-assessed in an additional session, and a joint decision was made for final evaluation.

Operative technique and postoperative rehabilitation

All patients underwent surgery at a single institution between January 2006 and December 2017. Surgery was performed at this institution by one of the senior surgeons, who commonly have at least 10 years of experience in arthroscopic (shoulder) surgery. Each surgical technique was chosen with regard to the affected tendon, tear size, and tear configuration. In summary, surgery was performed under general anesthesia in the beach chair position. Initially, diagnostic arthroscopy was carried out via a posterior standard portal using a 30° arthroscope. Affected tendons, tear size, localization, and the degree of retraction were evaluated, and the glenohumeral joint was assessed for concomitant injuries. Prior to any reconstruction, debridement of the lesion was performed via additional anterolateral and posterolateral portals in order to create stable tear margins. If necessary, the tendon was released from surrounding tissue using an electrothermal or shaver device to achieve adequate tendon reduction and footprint coverage. For supraspinatus tears, the preferred method was a double row SpeedBridge technique (four 4.75-mm SwiveLock anchors, Arthrex, USA) to achieve best footprint fixation and protection from anchor failure. Margin convergence techniques were used in cases of L-shaped or crescent-shaped tear configurations, and a single row repair was used for small tears if it allowed sufficient footprint coverage. For cranial subscapularis repairs, one double loaded suture anchor (Biocorkscrew 5 mm, Arthrex, USA) was used. In larger tears, two anchors were applied in a single row technique [24, 29]. If a subacromial spur was present or in Acromion types 2 and 3 according to Bigliani et al. [30], subacromial decompression was performed using a shaver. If symptoms and arthroscopic findings suggested long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) pathology, tenotomy and, if desired by the patient, tenodesis (intraarticular or subpectoral) was performed.

Postoperatively, guided physical therapy was administered within the following limitations: the operated arm was supported with a 30° abduction pillow for 6 weeks. Limited passive range of motion was administered for six weeks, followed by consecutive progression to full active range of motion by the end of 9 weeks. In cases of additional subscapularis repairs, patients were instructed to avoid passive external rotation and active internal rotation and to restrict abduction to 90° in the scapular plane for 6 weeks, followed by a gradual progression to full active range of motion by the end of 9 weeks postoperatively. In cases of additional LHB tenodesis, no active elbow flexion was permitted within the first 6 weeks postoperatively.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis for this study was performed using the SPSS software version 26.0 (IBM, statistics). Continuous variables are reported as mean ± standard deviation in case of normal distribution of the data, and for non-parametric variables, median and 1st—3rd quartiles are presented. Categorial variables are reported as frequency (n) and percentage. Distribution of the variables was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and plot diagrams. For comparison of continuous variables between the study groups (two-tailed), the Mann–Whitney U test or an unpaired t-test were employed, while group comparison of categorical variables (two-tailed) was performed with the Chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test, according to the data distribution. Cohen’s Kappa was used to assess for interrater and intrarater reliability [31]. Statistical significance was accepted when p < 0.05. A total sample size of n = 28 subjects to detect the minimal clinically important difference of the ASES score of 11.1 points [32] and a standard deviation of 10 points in order to achieve a statistical power of 0.8 was determined in an a priori power analysis, performed with G*Power (Erdfelder, Faul, Buchner, Lang, HHU Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany).


Between 2006 and 2017, 57 patients overall met the inclusion criteria for this study. Four patients were unable to schedule a follow up appointment and were excluded from analysis. Despite our best efforts, eleven patients could not be reached and were therefore considered lost to follow up. The remaining 42 patients (79%) were available for final follow up. The mean postoperative follow up was 55.6 months (range, 24–158). Twenty-one patients (50.0%) reported an adequate trauma prior to the onset of symptoms and twenty-one patients (50.0%) suffered a non-traumatic, degenerative rotator cuff tear. Baseline demographics and surgical characteristics were evenly distributed between both groups (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline demographics and surgical informationa

Clinical outcomes

There was no statistically significant difference in VAS and PROMs (ASES, CS) between both groups (Table 2). Furthermore, tear characteristics (partial tear vs. full thickness tear; isolated supraspinatus tear vs. combined anterosuperior tear) did not significantly affect the CS or the ASES score.

Table 2 Postoperative outcome measures between patients with traumatic and non-traumatic RCT at follow upa

Overall, Passive abduction in the scapular plane was (mean ± SD) 90 ± 8 degrees and passive external rotation was 60 ± 11 degrees, with no between group differences detected (Table 2). All patients revealed statistically significant decreased abduction strength (66.0 ± 26.7 N vs. 81.2 ± 24.7 N; p = 0.001) on the operated shoulder compared to the contralateral shoulder. Patients with additional subscapularis repair (n = 21), had internal rotation strength which did not differ from the contralateral shoulder (80.7 ± 37.5 N vs. 80.6 ± 33.5 N).

Radiological evaluation

Preoperative MRI was available for 40 patients (95.2%). There were four high-grade partial tears (19.0%) and 17 full thickness tears (81.0%) of the supraspinatus tendon among traumatic RCT, as opposed to twelve high-grade partial tears (57.1%) and nine full-thickness tears (43.9%) of the supraspinatus tendon among non-traumatic RCT (p = 0.011). In patients who underwent additional subscapularis repair during index surgery (n = 21), the majority of subscapularis tears were cranial tears (Table 3). Only two patients (5.0%) revealed a fatty degeneration grade 2 according to the Fuchs & Goutailler classification, and both of those patients had suffered a degenerative RCT. The remaining 38 patients (95.0%) showed either no signs of preoperative fatty degeneration (grade 0, 82.5%) or only some fatty streaks (grade 1, 12.5%).

Table 3 Preoperative tear tharacteristicsa

At final follow up, a total of 33 patients (78.6%) were available for MRI evaluation. One patient had to be excluded from postoperative MRI evaluation due to claustrophobia, and one patient had to be excluded due to an acute shoulder injury prior to the follow up appointment. Postoperative MRI findings are listed in Table 4. Interrater and intrarater reliability for binary assessment (healed vs. not healed) of the affected rotator cuff reached a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.87 (CI 0.41—1.00) for interrater reliability and 0.86 (CI 0.67 – 1.00) for intrarater reliability. Overall, 20 tendons (64.5%) were judged as healed on follow up MRI (Sugaya I, II, III), whereas 11 tendons (35.5%) were judged as not healed (Sugaya IV, V). Retears only affected supraspinatus tendons. Individual patient characteristics (tear etiology, partial tear/full thickness tear, LHB procedures, additional ASD) were not associated with increased retear rates.

Table 4 Postoperative MRI findingsa

Comparing patients with healed and retorn tendons at follow up, there was no statistically significant difference with regard to patient-reported outcome scores. Furthermore, force measurements revealed no inferior strength among patients with retorn tendons compared to patients with healed tendons (Table 5).

Table 5 Postoperative outcome measures between patients with and without healed tendonsa


The primary finding of this study was that in patients under the age of 50 years, the etiology of the rotator cuff tear did not affect postoperative outcomes and MRI-based healing rates after repair of (antero-)superior rotator cuff tears. The secondary finding was that tendon integrity on follow up MRI was not predictive of superior postoperative outcome scores or abduction strength compared to the uninjured side.

Among patients under the age of 50 years rotator cuff tears are uncommon and retears are rare, possibly due to a superior tissue quality and healing potential compared to older cohorts [11, 13]. In those patients the rotator cuff tear is either the direct result of a traumatic event or due to chronic tendon wear in the context of heavy labor or athletic overuse [5, 16,17,18, 33,34,35]. But despite a number of studies having previously addressed this aspect, debate remains whether or not etiology plays a role for postoperative patient outcomes and healing rates. In a previous study comparing both etiologies of RCT, Braune et al. [16] found superior postoperative results in the Constant score among patients with a traumatic tear as opposed to patients with non-traumatic tears (94.1 vs. 75.3). However, owing to their definition of traumatic tears (patient age < 50 years), those patients were substantially younger than the patients with degenerative tears in that study (mean 34.2 years vs. 54.1 years). Therefore, age could not be neglected as a potential confounder for the differences in scores. Other studies compared postoperative outcomes between traumatic and non-traumatic RCT in patients of a similar age without finding significant group differences. For example, Kukkonen et al. [19] and Tan et al. [18] reported similar clinical results on the Constant score, range of motion, and during strength testing among slightly older patients with a mean age between 57—60 years. Lin et al. [17] reported equivalent subjective outcome scores (ASES, CS, Simple Shoulder Test) between patients.

(< 45 years) with and without a traumatic event leading to their injury, however without assessing for radiological tendon-integrity. In the present study and similar to the previous studies, we were not able to detect significant differences in patient-reported outcome scores (ASES score, CS), nor did we find differences during strength measurements between traumatic and non-traumatic rotator cuff tears, thus rejecting our alternative hypothesis. However, whether or not etiology may relevantly influence postoperative outcomes may in fact be dependent on the timing of surgery and patient age. While there is controversy with regard to the best timing for surgical repair, evidence suggests that an early treatment is beneficial, particularly in traumatic tears [8, 36, 37]. Early surgical repair is intended to prevent tendon retraction, muscle atrophy, and fatty degeneration. However, acute traumatic injuries are accompanied by an inflammatory reaction, possibly augmenting postoperative tendon healing in the early posttraumatic phase [14]. Immediate surgical treatment is not always wished for or possible to perform, the potentially advantageous acute posttraumatic interval may often be missed [8, 10, 18, 38]. In the current study only three patients with traumatic tears presented within the first 6 weeks of their initial injury and therefore the potential benefits of acute tendon repair would not be expected. Furthermore, the influence of both traumatic and non-traumatic RCT may vary with respect to patient age. Increasing age is generally associated with a variety of biomechanical features such as osteoporotic bone, inferior tendon composition, and diminished vascular supply, which may adversely affect postoperative tendon healing and patient outcomes regardless of the etiology of the rotator cuff tear [39, 40]. But at what age these processes set in and begin to adversely affect surgical outcomes is unknown. Therefore, while patients in their fourth and fifth decades may not be biologically young nor old, even traumatically torn tendons may have already undergone (age-dependent) tendon wear which might compromise surgical results [17,18,19]. This concept of acute-on-chronic lesions is not new, but its potentially confounding implication must be accounted for when evaluating outcomes of traumatic RCT at a certain age [19]. In summary, potential biological benefits of traumatically torn tendons may in fact be lost due to a delay of treatment and with increasing patient age. Both aspects could explain the similar outcomes between patients with traumatic and non-traumatic tears.

In the present study, a retear of the previously reconstructed supraspinatus tendon was detected in one third of the patients at follow up. Similar rates are reported throughout the literature, ranging from 12% to well over 50%, depending on length of follow up, initial tear size, surgical technique, and age [18, 41,42,43,44,45,46]. While recent systematic reviews generally suggest that retears of the rotator cuff are associated with inferior postoperative outcomes, it remains unclear why some of the patients with a retear become symptomatic and potentially require revision surgery while others remain clinically inapparent, maintaining fairly satisfying outcomes in certain studies [11, 23, 43, 47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. In the current study, retears were not associated with inferior ASES or Constant scores compared to patients with healed tendons. The patients with a retear showed a tendency towards decreased strength of the affected shoulder compared to the contralateral shoulder, but without reaching statistical significance. It remains unclear why a tendon retear did not affect postoperative outcomes. Increasing age and need for workers’ compensation have been shown to be negative predictive factors after a retear of the reconstructed rotator cuff [53]. While none of the patients in our study received workers’ compensation with regard to their shoulder injury, it has to be considered that even though younger patients may place higher demands on their postoperative functional results than older patients, their intact force couple and deltoid muscle may also be more capable of temporary compensation for a torn supraspinatus muscle. What is more, all patients, regardless of tendon healing, showed significantly inferior abduction strength compared to the uninjured arm at follow up. Therefore, it is possible that a retorn tendon might not have sufficed to sufficiently diminish strength in order to reach statistical significance at this mid-term follow-up.

Although this study presents interesting findings, it is not without limitations. This was a retrospective study and despite our best efforts, patients were lost to follow up, hence carrying the risk of selection bias. Additionally, the patient cohort was heterogenous with a large proportion of anterosuperior RCT and a relevant amount of concomitant LHB procedures. As these procedures were divided up equally between both groups we do not consider this to have confounded the results. Furthermore, patients who reported traumatic injuries might have in fact suffered from acute on chronic injuries despite the presence of an adequate trauma and an acute onset of symptoms, and immediate treatment of traumatic tears was seldomly achieved thus potentially confounding the outcomes of these patients. Longer follow up might have been needed to detect significant differences between healed and not healed rotator cuffs as mechanisms to compensate for a torn tendon might still have been sufficient at this mid-term follow-up. Lastly, future studies might take into consideration the effects of a more immediate treatment particularly in traumatic RCT.


The etiology of the rotator cuff tear did not significantly affect postoperative outcomes and healing rates in a relatively young cohort. About one third of the patients revealed a full thickness retear, but no significant association could be established between structural integrity of the rotator cuff and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow up.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article or are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



American shoulder and elbow surgeons


Constant score


Magnetic resonance imaging




Not significant


Rotator cuff tear


Subscapularis tendon


Supraspinatus tendon


Visual analog scale


  1. Oh LS, Wolf BR, Hall MP, Levy BA, Marx RG. Indications for rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yamamoto A, Takagishi K, Osawa T, Yanagawa T, Nakajima D, Shitara H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of a rotator cuff tear in the general population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):116–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lazarides AL, Alentorn-Geli E, Choi JH, Stuart JJ, Lo IK, Garrigues GE, et al. Rotator cuff tears in young patients: a different disease than rotator cuff tears in elderly patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(11):1834–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mall NA, Lee AS, Chahal J, Sherman SL, Romeo AA, Verma NN, et al. An evidenced-based examination of the epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(2):366–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Krishnan SG, Harkins DC, Schiffern SC, Pennington SD, Burkhead WZ. Arthroscopic Repair of Full-Thickness Tears of the Rotator Cuff in Patients Younger Than 40 Years. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(3):324–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gulotta LV, Nho SJ, Dodson CC, Adler RS, Altchek DW, MacGillivray JD. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs at 5 years: part I–functional outcomes and radiographic healing rates. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):934–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Witney-Lagen C, Mazis G, Bruguera J, Atoun E, Sforza G, Levy O. Do elderly patients gain as much benefit from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair as their younger peers? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(6):1056–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hantes ME, Karidakis GK, Vlychou M, Varitimidis S, Dailiana Z, Malizos KN. A comparison of early versus delayed repair of traumatic rotator cuff tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(10):1766–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lafosse L, Brozska R, Toussaint B, Gobezie R. The outcome and structural integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with use of the double-row suture anchor technique. JBJS. 2007;89(7):1533–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Björnsson HC, Norlin R, Johansson K, Adolfsson LE. The influence of age, delay of repair, and tendon involvement in acute rotator cuff tears: structural and clinical outcomes after repair of 42 shoulders. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(2):187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Le BT, Wu XL, Lam PH, Murrell GA. Factors predicting rotator cuff retears: an analysis of 1000 consecutive rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1134–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang J Jr, Robbins M, Reilly J, Maerz T, Anderson K. The Clinical Effect of a Rotator Cuff Retear: A Meta-analysis of Arthroscopic Single-Row and Double-Row Repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):733–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Diebold G, Lam P, Walton J, Murrell GAC. Relationship between age and rotator cuff retear: a study of 1,600 consecutive rotator cuff repairs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(14):1198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pogorzelski J, Erber B, Themessl A, Rupp M-C, Feucht MJ, Imhoff AB, et al. Definition of the terms “acute” and “traumatic” in rotator cuff injuries: a systematic review and call for standardization in nomenclature. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2020;141(1):75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dwyer T, Razmjou H, Holtby R. Full-thickness rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 55 years: clinical outcome of arthroscopic repair in comparison with older patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(2):508–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Braune C, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Welsch F, Teufel M, Jaeger A. Mid-term results and quantitative comparison of postoperative shoulder function in traumatic and non-traumatic rotator cuff tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(8):419–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin EC, Mall NA, Dhawan A, Sherman SL, McGill KC, Provencher MT, et al. Arthroscopic primary rotator cuff repairs in patients aged younger than 45 years. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(5):811–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tan M, Lam PH, Le BT, Murrell GA. Trauma versus no trauma: an analysis of the effect of tear mechanism on tendon healing in 1300 consecutive patients after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(1):12–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kukkonen J, Joukainen A, Itälä A, Äärimaa V. Operatively treated traumatic versus non-traumatic rotator cuff ruptures: a registry study. Ups J Med Sci. 2013;118(1):29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellman H. Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete rotator cuff tears. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;254:64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):92–6. 

  22. Samilson RL, Prieto V. Dislocation arthropathy of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(4):456–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Willinger L, Lacheta L, Beitzel K, Buchmann S, Woertler K, Imhoff AB, et al. Clinical outcomes, tendon integrity, and shoulder strength after revision rotator cuff reconstruction: a minimum 2 years’ follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(11):2700–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Seppel G, Plath JE, Völk C, Seiberl W, Buchmann S, Waldt S, et al. Long-term results after arthroscopic repair of isolated subscapularis tears. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(4):759–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Patte D. Classification of rotator cuff lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;254:81–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fox JA, Noerdlinger MA, Romeo AA. Arthroscopic subscapularis repair. Oper Tech Orthop. 2002;12(3):209–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. A prospective outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):953–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fuchs B, Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Gerber C. Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8(6):599–605.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bartl C, Salzmann GM, Seppel G, Eichhorn S, Holzapfel K, Wörtler K, et al. Subscapularis function and structural integrity after arthroscopic repair of isolated subscapularis tears. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(6):1255–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bigliani L. The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Orthop trans. 1986;10:228.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Nwachukwu BU, Cabarcas BC, Cole BJ, et al. Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(5):939–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Via AG, De Cupis M, Spoliti M, Oliva F. Clinical and biological aspects of rotator cuff tears. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2013;3(2):70–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Parnes N, Bartoszewski NR, Defranco MJ. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in active patients younger than 40 years: 2- to 5-year clinical outcomes. Orthopedics. 2018;41(1):e52–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. MacKechnie MA, Chahal J, Wasserstein D, Theodoropoulos JS, Henry P, Dwyer T. Repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears in patients aged younger than 55 years. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(10):1366–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lähteenmäki HE, Virolainen P, Hiltunen A, Heikkilä J, Nelimarkka OI. Results of early operative treatment of rotator cuff tears with acute symptoms. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):148–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Petersen SA, Murphy TP. The timing of rotator cuff repair for the restoration of function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):62–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sørensen AK, Bak K, Krarup AL, Thune CH, Nygaard M, Jørgensen U, et al. Acute rotator cuff tear: do we miss the early diagnosis? A prospective study showing a high incidence of rotator cuff tears after shoulder trauma. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(2):174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Adler RS, Fealy S, Rudzki JR, Kadrmas W, Verma NN, Pearle A, et al. Rotator cuff in asymptomatic volunteers: contrast-enhanced US depiction of intratendinous and peritendinous vascularity. Radiology. 2008;248(3):954–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meyer DC, Fucentese SF, Koller B, Gerber C. Association of osteopenia of the humeral head with full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(3):333–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zumstein MA, Jost B, Hempel J, Hodler J, Gerber C. The clinical and structural long-term results of open repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. JBJS. 2008;90(11):2423–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu XL, Briggs L, Murrell GA. Intraoperative determinants of rotator cuff repair integrity: an analysis of 500 consecutive repairs. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2771–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tashjian RZ, Hollins AM, Kim HM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Steger-May K, et al. Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(12):2435–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hantes ME, Ono Y, Raoulis VA, Doxariotis N, Venouziou A, Zibis A, et al. Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture bridge technique for rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 55 years: a prospective comparative study. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(1):116–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Heuberer PR, Smolen D, Pauzenberger L, Plachel F, Salem S, Laky B, et al. Longitudinal long-term magnetic resonance imaging and clinical follow-up after single-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: clinical superiority of structural tendon integrity. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(6):1283–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zumstein MA, Jost B, Hempel J, Hodler J, Gerber C. The clinical and structural long-term results of open repair of massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(11):2423–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hug K, Gerhardt C, Haneveld H, Scheibel M. Arthroscopic knotless-anchor rotator cuff repair: a clinical and radiological evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(9):2628–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shin SJ, Kook SH, Rao N, Seo MJ. Clinical outcomes of modified mason-allen single-row repair for bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears: comparison with the double-row suture-bridge technique. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):1976–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Flurin PH, Hardy P, Abadie P, Boileau P, Collin P, Deranlot J, et al. Arthroscopic repair of the rotator cuff: prospective study of tendon healing after 70 years of age in 145 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(8 Suppl):S379–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. DeFranco MJ, Bershadsky B, Ciccone J, Yum JK, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: a correlation of anatomic and clinical results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):759–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. El-Azab H, Buchmann S, Beitzel K, Waldt S, Imhoff AB. Clinical and structural evaluation of arthroscopic double-row suture-bridge rotator cuff repair: early results of a novel technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(12):1730–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Boileau P, Brassart N, Watkinson DJ, Carles M, Hatzidakis AM, Krishnan SG. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: does the tendon really heal? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1229–40.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kim SJ, Choi YR, Jung M, Lee W, Chun YM. Arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior massive rotator cuff tears: does repair integrity affect outcomes? Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(8):1762–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Slabaugh MA, Nho SJ, Grumet RC, Wilson JB, Seroyer ST, Frank RM, et al. Does the literature confirm superior clinical results in radiographically healed rotator cuffs after rotator cuff repair? Arthroscopy. 2010;26(3):393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Paxton ES, Teefey SA, Dahiya N, Keener JD, Yamaguchi K, Galatz LM. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of failed repairs of large or massive rotator cuff tears: minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(7):627–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Conceptualization: AT, JP, ABI. Methodology: AT, JP, MCR. Formal analysis and investigation: AT, TW, HD. Writing original draft: AT. Writing – review and editing: AT, JP, MCR, KAH, ABI, KW. Supervision: JP, ABI. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Pogorzelski.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the institution’s ethics committee (Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismininger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany, reference number 17/19 S-AS). The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent for participation and consent for publication in a scientific journal was obtained from all patients prior to participation.

Competing interests

Andreas B. Imhoff receives royalties from Arthrex Inc. (Naples, FL, USA) and Arthrosurface (Franklin, MA). He is a consultant for Arthrosurface (Franklin, MA, USA) and medi (Bayreuth, Germany). The companies were not involved in the study design, data collection, or final manuscript.

All other authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

All other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

The other authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher’ s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Themessl, A., Wagner, T., Rupp, MC. et al. “Functional outcomes and MRI-based tendon healing after (antero-) superior rotator cuff repair among patients under 50 years: retrospective analysis of traumatic versus non-traumatic rotator cuff tears”. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 52 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Shoulder
  • Rotator cuff
  • Etiology
  • Trauma
  • Healing rate
  • Retear