Comparative Analysis between Arthroscopic Transosseous Repair and Suture Anchor-based Repair in Rotator Cuff Injury

have failed to establish clinically significant differences between these techniques. 5 Mechanism of Injury for Rotator Cuff InjuriesRotator cuff injuries often occur due to repetitive overhead movements, acute trauma, or degenerative changes over time.Common mechanisms include: Overuse and repetitive strain: Athletes, especially those engaged in sports, often suffer from repetitive strain injuries due to repeated overhead motions. Traumatic events: Acute injuries can result from sudden events such as falling onto an outstretched arm, lifting heavy objects abruptly, or a sudden jerking motion. IntroductIonRotator cuff injuries constitute a significant challenge in orthopedic practice, demanding precise surgical interventions to restore functionality and alleviate pain.Over the years, various surgical techniques have emerged, each aiming to enhance the efficacy of rotator cuff repairs. 1 This introduction delves into the evolution of these techniques, focusing particularly on the comparative analysis between arthroscopic transosseous repair and anchor-based repair methods. Evolution of Rotator Cuff Repair TechniquesSince the pioneering work of McLaughlin, the landscape of rotator cuff repair has undergone substantial evolution.Initially, the open transosseous repair technique laid the foundation for subsequent advancements (McLaughlin).However, with the advent of arthroscopic approaches and innovative implants, a plethora of techniques has emerged, including miniopen, arthroscopic singlerow (SR), and double-row (DR) repair methods, among others.These advancements were driven by the pursuit of improved bone-tendon healing and better functional outcomes. 2Biomechanical insights and comparative studies have played a pivotal role in evaluating the efficacy of different repair techniques.Comparisons between SR and DR methods have highlighted the superior footprint coverage, construct stability, and load-bearing capacity of the latter. 3Furthermore, the transosseous-equivalent (TOE) technique has demonstrated enhanced strength and superior restoration of the footprint compared to traditional methods. 4espite conflicting results in some studies, level-1 randomized trials