Are there differences in arthroscopic and histological features between traumatic and degenerative rotator cuff tears in elderly patients? A prospective dual-center analysis

Table 3 Comparison of arthroscopic findings between the groups

Variable	Group T (n = 19)	Group D (n = 23)	p value
Tear size
ML, mm	22.2 ± 6.6	24.4 ± 8.3	0.361^a
AP, mm	22.0 ± 10.5	24.2 ± 9.7	0.245^a
Medium	13 (68.4)	14 (60.9)
Large	6 (31.6)	9 (39.1)	0.611^b
Rotator cuff tendon status
Good	13 (68.4)	0 (0.0)
Moderate	6 (31.6)	15 (65.2)
Poor	0 (0.0)	8 (34.8)	< 0.001^b
Displacement, mm	21.7 ± 7.0	24.4 ± 8.3	0.273^a
Tension, N	11.6 ± 5.3	23.6 ± 8.2	< 0.001^a
Stiffness, N/mm	0.56 ± 0.31	1.09 ± 0.67	< 0.001^a
LHB absent	0 (0.0)	3 (13.0)	0.102^b
LHB dislocation or subluxation	7 (36.8)	1 (4.4)	0.014^b
LHB tear
Normal	7 (36.8)	11 (47.8)
< 50%	9 (47.4)	8 (34.8)
≥ 50%	3 (15.8)	4 (17.4)	0.699^b
Subscapularis tendon tear	12 (63.2)	12 (52.2)	0.474^b
Copeland–Levy classification
Grade 0	4 (21.1)	0 (0.0)
Grade 1	11 (57.9)	4 (17.4)
Grade 2	4 (21.1)	13 (56.5)
Grade 3	0 (0.0)	6 (26.1)	< 0.001^b

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%)
Group T, traumatic rotator cuff tears; Group D, degenerative rotator cuff tears; ML, medial-to-lateral; AP, anterior-to-posterior; LHB, long head of the biceps
^aMann–Whitney U-test
^bChi square test

ISSN: 1749-799X