Evaluation was made of a total of 120 patients as 40 (33.3%) in Group A with crescent-shaped tear, 40 (33.3%) in Group B with U-shaped tear, and 40 (33.3%) in Group C with L-shaped tear. The patients comprised 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males, with a mean age of 66.68 ± 6.86 years (range, 50–81 years). The operated side was right in 64 (53.3%) cases and left in 56 (46.7%) cases (Table 1).
Table 1
Evaluation of the Descriptive Characteristics of the Groups.
Constant Murley score | All cases | Group A | Group B | Group C | p | Post hoc |
Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) |
All cases | Single row | 81.82 ± 2.80 (80) | 83.25 ± 3.27 (83) | 81.15 ± 2.37 (80) | 81.05 ± 2.19 (80) | a0.017* | A > B, C |
Double row | 82.63 ± 3.43 (83) | 83.25 ± 3.16 (83) | 83.20 ± 3.07 (83) | 81.45 ± 3.87 (82) | a0.169 | - |
cp | 0.082 | 0.967 | 0.022* | 0.610 | | |
Total | 82.23 ± 3.15 (82) | 83.25 ± 3.18 (83) | 82.18 ± 2.90 (82) | 81.25 ± 3.11 (80) | a0.016* | A > C |
Small tear | 1Single row (n = 16) | 82.00 ± 2.61 (82) | 82.50 ± 3.94 (82) | 81.80 ± 1.79 (82) | 81.60 ± 1.52 (82) | b0.973 | - |
2Double row (n = 15) | 83.27 ± 3.43 (83) | 83.40 ± 3.71 (84) | 83.20 ± 3.70 (83) | 83.20 ± 3.70 (83) | b0.968 | - |
cp | 0.245 | 0.507 | 0.588 | 0.445 | | |
Small tear total | 82.61 ± 3.05 (83) | 82.91 ± 3.67 (84) | 82.50 ± 2.84 (83) | 82.40 ± 2.80 (83) | b0.957 | - |
Medium tear | 3Single row (n = 27) | 82.30 ± 2.73 (83) | 83.22 ± 2.73 (83) | 82.13 ± 2.90 (82) | 81.60 ± 2.63 (80) | b0.507 | - |
4Double row (n = 30) | 82.87 ± 2.73 (83) | 82.80 ± 2.90 (83) | 82.90 ± 2.81 (83) | 82.90 ± 2.77 (82) | b0.991 | - |
cp | 0.580 | 0.701 | 0.720 | 0.338 | | |
Medium tear total | 82.60 ± 2.72 (83) | 83.00 ± 2.75 (83) | 82.56 ± 2.79 (83) | 82.25 ± 2.71 (82) | b0.676 | - |
Large tear | 5Single row (n = 17) | 80.88 ± 3.02 (80) | 84.20 ± 3.83 (87) | 79.57 ± 1.13 (79) | 79.40 ± 0.55 (79) | b0.018* | A > B, C |
6Double row (n = 15) | 81.53 ± 4.55 (80) | 84.00 ± 3.67 (86) | 83.80 ± 3.56 (85) | 75.80 ± 2.05 (76) | b0.015* | A, B > C |
cp | 0.560 | 0.729 | 0.014* | 0.047* | | |
Large tear total | 81.19 ± 3.76 (80) | 84.10 ± 3.54 (87) | 81.33 ± 3.17 (80) | 78.10 ± 1.97 (79) | b0.001** | A > C |
Small – Medium tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–3) | 0,701 | 0.720 | 0.881 | 0.799 | | |
cp(1–4) | 0,430 | 0.912 | 0.573 | 0.487 | | |
cp(2–3) | 0,340 | 0.733 | 0.654 | 0.375 | | |
cp(2–4) | 0,492 | 0.533 | 0.802 | 0.756 | | |
Small – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–5) | 0,058 | 0.350 | 0.017* | 0.021* | | |
cp(1–6) | 0,762 | 0.354 | 0.331 | 0.014* | | |
cp(2–5) | 0,006** | 0.742 | 0.014* | 0.022* | | |
cp(2–6) | 0,277 | 0.745 | 0.746 | 0.014* | | |
Medium – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(3–5) | 0,037* | 0.783 | 0.049* | 0.071 | | |
cp(3–6) | 0,698 | 0.837 | 0.204 | 0.009** | | |
cp(4–5) | 0,003** | 0.571 | 0.006** | 0.010* | | |
cp(4–6) | 0,222 | 0.617 | 0.709 | 0.004** | | |
aOne-way ANOVA Test bKruskal Wallis Test cMann Whitney U Test *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 |
Evaluations related to the Constant Murley Scores
Inter-group evaluations:
Single row repair; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the Constant Murley (CM) scores (p = 0.017; p < 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine the origin of the difference, the Group A scores were found to to be higher than those of Group B (p = 0.046) and Group C (p = 0.034) (p < 0.05).
Double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.169; p > 0.05).
All cases; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.016; p < 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine the origin of the difference, the Group A scores were found to to be higher than those of Group C (p = 0.013, p < 0.05).
Small tears applied with single-double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.973; p > 0.05 and p = 0.968; p > 0,05).
All cases with small tears; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.957; p > 0.05).
Medium tears applied with single-double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.507; p > 0.05 and p = 0.991; p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.676; p > 0.05).
Cases with large tears applied with single row repair; the CM scores of Group A were found to be higher than those of Group B (p = 0.026) and Group C (p = 0.041) (p < 0.05).
Cases with large tears applied with double row repair; the CM scores of Group A (p = 0.032) and Group B (p = 0.040) were found to be higher than those of Group C (p < 0.05).
All cases with large tears; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the CM scores (p = 0.001; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine the origin of the difference, the Group A scores were found to to be higher than those of Group C (p = 0.001, p < 0.01) (Table 2).
Table 2
Evaluations related to the Constant Murley Score.
ASES score | All cases | Group A | Group B | Group C | p | Post hoc |
Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) |
All cases | Single row | 81.28 ± 3.78 (82) | 82.80 ± 3.02 (82) | 80.50 ± 4.05 (81) | 80.55 ± 3.91 (81) | a0.088 | - |
Double row | 82.23 ± 3.95 (82) | 83.00 ± 2.77 (83) | 83.05 ± 2.80 (83) | 80.65 ± 5.39 (82) | a0.200 | - |
cp | 0.135 | 0.712 | 0.061 | 0.860 | | |
Total | 81.76 ± 3.88 (82) | 82.90 ± 2.86 (82) | 81.78 ± 3.67 (82) | 80.60 ± 4.65 (82) | a0.028* | A > C |
Small tear | 1Single row (n = 16) | 82.75 ± 3.55 (83) | 86.00 ± 2.61 (86) | 80.80 ± 2.59 (80) | 80.80 ± 2.59 (80) | b0.018* | A > B, C |
2Double row (n = 15) | 86.53 ± 2.00 (86) | 86.40 ± 2.30 (86) | 86.60 ± 2.07 (86) | 86.60 ± 2.07 (86) | b0.969 | - |
cp | 0.001** | 0.712 | 0.009** | 0.009** | | |
Small tear total | 84.58 ± 3.44 (85) | 86.18 ± 2.36 (86) | 83.70 ± 3.77 (85) | 83.70 ± 3.77 (85) | b0.217 | - |
Medium tear | 3Single row (n = 27) | 82.74 ± 2.77 (82) | 81.44 ± 2.13 (82) | 84.13 ± 2.23 (84) | 82.80 ± 3.29 (84) | b0.103 | - |
4Double row (n = 30) | 81.63 ± 1.94 (82) | 81.70 ± 2.11 (82) | 81.60 ± 1.96 (82) | 81.60 ± 1.96 (82) | b0.999 | - |
cp | 0.099 | 0.604 | 0.027* | 0.221 | | |
Medium tear total | 82.16 ± 2.41 (82) | 81.58 ± 2.06 (82) | 82.72 ± 2.40 (83) | 82.20 ± 2.71 (82) | b0.296 | - |
Large tear | 5Single row (n = 17) | 77.59 ± 2.87 (76) | 81.40 ± 1.95 (80) | 76.14 ± 1.35 (76) | 75.80 ± 0.84 (76) | b0.005** | A > B, C |
6Double row (n = 15) | 79.13 ± 4.82 (81) | 82.20 ± 1.30 (82) | 82.40 ± 1.67 (82) | 72.80 ± 1.30 (73) | b0.008** | A, B > C |
cp | 0.305 | 0.337 | 0.004** | 0.008** | | |
Large tear total | 78.31 ± 3.92 (78) | 81.80 ± 1.62 (82) | 78.75 ± 3.52 (78) | 74.30 ± 1.89 (75) | b0.001** | A, B > C |
Small – Medium tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–3) | 0,929 | 0.003** | 0.047* | 0.175 | | |
cp(1–4) | 0,186 | 0.004** | 0.619 | 0.619 | | |
cp(2–3) | 0,001** | 0.004** | 0.065 | 0.019* | | |
cp(2–4) | 0,001** | 0.004** | 0.002** | 0.002** | | |
Small – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–5) | 0,001** | 0.016* | 0.008** | 0.009** | | |
cp(1–6) | 0,068 | 0.017* | 0.293 | 0.009** | | |
cp(2–5) | 0,001** | 0.011* | 0.004** | 0.008** | | |
cp(2–6) | 0,001** | 0.012* | 0.015* | 0.009** | | |
Medium – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(3–5) | 0,001** | 0.783 | 0.001* | 0.005** | | |
cp(3–6) | 0,018* | 0.577 | 0.160 | 0.002** | | |
cp(4–5) | 0,001** | 0.661 | 0.001** | 0.002** | | |
cp(4–6) | 0,144 | 0.802 | 0.706 | 0.002** | | |
aOne-way ANOVA Test bKruskal Wallis Test cMann Whitney U Test *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 |
Intra-group Evaluations:
All cases; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.082; p > 0.05).
All cases with small tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.245; p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.580; p > 0.05).
All cases with large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.560; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group A with small, medium and large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.967; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group B; the scores of the group applied with single row repair were determined to be statistically significantly lower than those of the group applied with double row repair (p = 0.022; p < 0.05).
Cases in Group B with small and medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.588; p > 0.05, and p = 0.720, p > 0.05).
Cases in Group B with large tears; the scores of the group applied with single row repair were determined to be statistically significantly lower than those of the group applied with double row repair (p = 0.014; p < 0.05).
All cases in Group C; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.610; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group C with small and medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the CM scores according to repair type (p = 0.445; p > 0.05, and p = 0.338, p > 0.05).
All cases in Group C with large tears; the scores of the group applied with double row repair were determined to be statistically significantly lower than those of the group applied with single row repair (p = 0.047; p < 0.05).
Intra-Group Evaluations of Small, Medium, and Large Tears
In the evaluation of small and medium tears, no statistically significant difference was determined between the scores of cases with small tears applied with single row or double row repair and cases with medium tears applied with single row or double row repair (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of small and large tears, the scores of cases with small tears applied with double row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.006, p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of medium and large tears, the scores of cases with medium tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.37) and medium tears applied with double row repair (p = 0.003) were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
When the results above are examined, the CM scores showed a difference according to the type of repair, and this difference was seen to originate from the large tear group. The scores of the large tear group were found to be lower than those of the small tear group and the medium tear group. As seen in Fig. 1, the lowest result was obtained in the Group C cases with a large tear applied with double row repair (Fig. 1).
Evaluations related to the ASES Score
Inter-group Evaluations
All cases applied with single row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.088; p > 0.05).
All cases applied with double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.200; p > 0.05).
All cases; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.028; p < 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the Group A scores were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p = 0.023; p < 0.05).
Cases with small tear applied with single row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.018; p > 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the Group A scores were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group B (p = 0.046) and Group C (p = 0.046) (p < 0.05).
Cases with small tear applied with double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.969; p > 0.05).
All cases with small tears; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.217; p > 0.05).
Cases with medium tear applied with single-double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.103; p > 0.05, and p = 0.999; p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tear; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.296; p > 0.05).
Cases with large tear applied with single row repair; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.005; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the Group A scores were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group B (p = 0.012) and Group C (p = 0.013) (p < 0.05).
Cases with large tear applied with double row repair; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.008; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A (p = 0.024) and Group B (p = 0.020) were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p < 0.05).
All cases with large tear; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the ASES scores (p = 0.001; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A (p = 0.001) and Group B (p = 0.024) were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p < 0.05) (Table 3).
Table 3
Evaluations Related to the ASES Score.
UCLA score | All cases | Group A | Group B | Group C | p | Post hoc |
Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median) | Mean ± SD (Median)) | Mean ± SD (Median) |
All cases | Single row | 28.33 ± 2.31 (29) | 29.45 ± 1.93 (29) | 27.60 ± 2.30 (27) | 27.95 ± 2.35 (28) | a0.024* | A > B |
Double row | 28.87 ± 2.72 (29) | 29.40 ± 1.96 (29) | 29.40 ± 2.04 (29) | 27.80 ± 3.64 (28) | a0.206 | - |
cp | 0.126 | 0.890 | 0.010* | 0.946 | | |
Total | 28.60 ± 2.53 (29) | 29.43 ± 1.92 (29) | 28.50 ± 2.33 (29) | 27.88 ± 3.02 (28) | a0.021* | A > C |
Small tear | 1Single row (n = 16) | 28.94 ± 2.02 (29) | 29.50 ± 3.21 (28) | 28.60 ± 0.89 (29) | 28.60 ± 0.89 (29) | b0.993 | - |
2Double row (n = 15) | 28.60 ± 1.40 (29) | 28.40 ± 1.34 (29) | 28.60 ± 1.67 (29) | 28.80 ± 1.48 (29) | b0.943 | - |
cp | 0.881 | 0.847 | 0.905 | 1.000 | | |
Small tear total | 28.77 ± 1.73 (29) | 29.00 ± 2.49 (29) | 28.60 ± 1.26 (29) | 28.70 ± 1.16 (29) | b0.977 | - |
Medium tear | 3Single row (n = 27) | 29.11 ± 1.97 (29) | 29.33 ± 1.41 (29) | 28.88 ± 2.47 (28) | 29.10 ± 2.13 (29) | b0.588 | - |
4Double row (n = 30) | 29.93 ± 2.30 (29) | 30.00 ± 2.31 (29) | 29.90 ± 2.42 (29) | 29.90 ± 2.42 (29) | b0.984 | - |
cp | 0.162 | 0.735 | 0.222 | 0.421 | | |
Medium tear total | 29.54 ± 2.17 (29) | 29.68 ± 1.92 (29) | 29.44 ± 2.43 (29) | 29.50 ± 2.26 (29) | b0.713 | - |
Large tear | 5Single row (n = 17) | 26.53 ± 2.18 (25) | 29.60 ± 0.89 (29) | 25.43 ± 0.79 (25) | 25.00 ± 0.71 (25) | b0.003** | A > B, C |
6Double row (n = 15) | 27.00 ± 3.46 (29) | 29.20 ± 1.48 (29) | 29.20 ± 1.48 (29) | 22.60 ± 1.14 (23) | b0.008** | A, B > C |
cp | 0.592 | 0.736 | 0.004** | 0.011* | | |
Large tear total | 26.75 ± 2.82 (27) | 29.40 ± 1.17 (29) | 27.00 ± 2.22 (27) | 23.80 ± 1.55 (24) | b0.001** | A, B > C |
Small – Medium tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–3) | 0.786 | 0.590 | 0.760 | 0.850 | | |
cp(1–4) | 0.276 | 0.441 | 0.567 | 0.567 | | |
cp(2–3) | 0.537 | 0.336 | 1.000 | 0.950 | | |
cp(2–4) | 0.105 | 0.261 | 0.350 | 0.492 | | |
Small – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(1–5) | 0.004** | 0.509 | 0.003** | 0.006** | | |
cp(1–6) | 0.385 | 0.777 | 0.345 | 0.007** | | |
cp(2–5) | 0.006** | 0.178 | 0.005** | 0.008** | | |
cp(2–6) | 0.431 | 0.381 | 0.511 | 0.009** | | |
Medium – Large tear | | | | | | |
cp(3–5) | 0.001** | 0.485 | 0.002** | 0.002** | | |
cp(3–6) | 0.148 | 0.945 | 0.597 | 0.002** | | |
cp(4–5) | 0.001** | 0.753 | 0.001** | 0.002** | | |
cp(4–6) | 0.032* | 0.755 | 0.804 | 0.002** | | |
aOne-way ANOVA Test bKruskal Wallis Test cMann Whitney U Test *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 |
Intra-group Evaluations:
All cases; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.135; p > 0.05).
All cases with small tears; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.001; p < 0.01).
All cases with medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.099; p > 0.05).
All cases with large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.305; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group A with small, medium and large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.712; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group B; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.061; p > 0.05).
All Group B cases with small tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.009; p < 0.01).
All Group B cases with medium tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.027; p < 0.05).
All Group B cases with large tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.004; p < 0.01).
All Group C cases; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.860; p > 0.05).
All Group C cases with small tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.009; p < 0.01).
All Group C cases with medium tear; no statistically significant difference was determined in the ASES scores according to repair type (p = 0.221; p > 0.05).
All Group C cases with large tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.008; p < 0.01) (Table 3).
Intra-Group Evaluations of Small, Medium, and Large Tears
In the evaluation of small and medium tears, the scores of cases with small tears applied with double row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with medium tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.001) and medium tears applied with double row repair (p = 0.001) (p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of small and large tears, the scores of cases with small tears applied with single row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.001, p < 0.01). The scores of cases with small tears applied with double row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.001) and large tears applied with double row repair (p = 0.001) (p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of medium and large tears, the scores of cases with medium tears applied with single row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.001) and large tears with double row repair (p = 0.018) (p < 0.05). The scores of cases with medium tears applied with double row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
When the results above are examined, the ASES scores showed a difference according to the type of repair, and generally this difference was seen to originate from the large tear group. The scores of the large tear group were found to be lower than those of the small tear group and the medium tear group. As seen in Fig. 2, the lowest result was obtained in the Group C cases with a large tear applied with double row repair (Fig. 2).
Evaluations related to the UCLA Scores
Inter-group Evaluations
All cases applied with single row repair; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.024; p < 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group B (p = 0.031; p < 0.05).
All cases applied with double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.206; p > 0.05).
All cases; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.021; p < 0.05). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p = 0.027; p < 0.05).
All cases with small tear applied with single row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.993; p > 0.05, p = 0.943; p > 0.05).
All cases with small tear; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.977; p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tear applied with single-double row repair; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.588; p > 0.05, p = 0.984, p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tear; no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.713; p > 0.05).
All cases with large tear applied with single row repair; A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.003; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group B (p = 0.015) and Group C (p = 0.005) p < 0.05).
All cases with large tear applied with double row repair; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.008; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A (p = 0.022) and Group B (p = 0.022) were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p < 0.05).
All cases with large tear; a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the UCLA scores (p = 0.001; p < 0.01). In the paired comparisons to determine from which group the difference originated, the scores of Group A (p = 0.001) and Group B (p = 0.022) were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of Group C (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Intra-Group Evaluations
All cases; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.126; p > 0.05).
All cases with small tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.881; p > 0.05).
All cases with medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.162; p > 0.05).
All cases with large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.592; p > 0.05).
All cases in Group A with small, medium and large tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.890; p > 0.05).
All Group B cases; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.010; p < 0.05).
All Group B cases with small and medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.905; p > 0.05, and p = 0.222, p > 0.05).
All Group B cases with large tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly lower than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.004; p < 0.01).
All Group C cases; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 0.946; p > 0.05).
All Group C cases with small and medium tears; no statistically significant difference was determined in the UCLA scores according to repair type (p = 1.000; p > 0.05, and p = 0.421, p > 0.05).
All Group C cases with large tear; the scores of the single row repair group were determined to be statistically significantly higher than the scores of the double row repair group (p = 0.011; p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Intra-Group Evaluations of Small, Medium, and Large Tears
In the evaluation of small and medium tears, no statistically significant difference was determined between the scores of cases with small tears applied with single or double row repair and cases with medium tears applied with single or double row repair (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of small and large tears, the scores of cases with small tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.004) and small tears applied with double row repair (p = 0.006) were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p < 0.01). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
In the evaluation of medium and large tears, the scores of cases with medium tears applied with single row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p < 0.001; p < 0.01)
The scores of cases with medium tears applied with double row repair were statistically significantly higher than those of cases with large tears applied with single row repair (p = 0.001) and large tears applied with double row repair (p = 0.032) (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was determined in the other comparisons (p > 0.05).
When the results above are examined, the UCLA scores showed a difference according to the type of repair, and this difference was seen to originate from the large tear group. The scores of the large tear group were found to be lower than those of the small tear group and the medium tear group. As seen in Fig. 3, the lowest result was obtained in the Group C cases with a large tear applied with double row repair (Fig. 3).
| | Total (n = 120) | Group A (n = 40) | Group B (n = 40) | Group C (n = 40) | p |
Age (years) | Min-Max (Median) | 50–81 (66) | 50–81 (63) | 50–81 (67) | 57–81 (70) | a0.001** |
Mean ± SD | 66.68 ± 6.86 | 64.23 ± 5.84 | 66.05 ± 6.06 | 69.75 ± 7.52 |
Gender | Female | 69 (57.5) | 24 (60) | 27 (67.5) | 18 (45) | d0.135 |
Male | 51 (42.5) | 16 (40) | 13 (32.5) | 22 (55) |
Side | Right | 64 (53.3) | 25 (62.5) | 16 (40) | 23 (57.5) | d0.118 |
Left | 56 (46.7) | 15 (37.5) | 24 (60) | 17 (42.5) |
Repair type | Single row | 60 (50) | 20 (50) | 20 (50) | 20 (50) | d1.000 |
Double row | 60 (50) | 20 (50) | 20 (50) | 20 (50) |
Size of tear | Small | 31 (25.8) | 11 (27.5) | 10 (25) | 10 (25) | d0.989 |
Medium | 57 (47.5) | 19 (47.5) | 18 (45) | 20 (50) |
Large | 32 (26.7) | 10 (25) | 12 (30) | 10 (25) |
aOne-way ANOVA Test dPearson Chi-Square Test *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 |
Table 4: Evaluations Related to the UCLA Score. |