From: Metallic versus biodegradable suture anchors for rotator cuff repair: a case control study
VARIABLE | GROUP 1 | GROUP 2 | P |
---|---|---|---|
AGEÂ (mean + sd) | 56.5 + 10 | 58.1 + 9 | 0.5 |
SEX | Â | Â | 1 |
 Male | 26 | 27 |  |
 Female | 23 | 32 |  |
ARM DOMINANCE | Â | Â | 0.2 |
 Yes | 40 | 42 |  |
 No | 9 | 17 |  |
TRAUMA | Â | Â | 0.3 |
 Yes | 12 | 10 |  |
 No | 37 | 49 |  |
LOCATION | Â | Â | 1 |
 Supraspinatus | 25 | 30 |  |
 Supraspinatus+ Infraspinatus | 24 | 29 |  |
DIMENSION | Â | Â | 0.1 |
 < 1 cm or 1–3 cm | 25 | 41 |  |
 3–5 cm | 24 | 18 |  |
LHB patology | Â | Â | 0.2 |
 Tear | 18 | 24 |  |
 Tendinophaty | 10 | 14 |  |
 Absent | 21 | 11 |  |
LHB Treatment | Â | Â | 0.3 |
 No | 17 | 19 |  |
 Tenotomy | 19 | 25 |  |
 Tenodesis | 13 | 5 |  |
ACROMIOPLASTY | |||
 Performed | 22 | 29 |  |
 Not performed | 27 | 30 |  |
NUMBER OF ANCHORSÂ (mean + sd) | 1.71+ 0.72 | 1.76 + 0.67 | 0.5 |