A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Row with Double-Row Fixation in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Division of Orthopaedics, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, W1648, Box 502, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada. Lapner: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
(Impact Factor: 5.28).
07/2012; 94(14):1249-57. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00999
Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled study was to compare the functional outcomes and healing rates after use of single-row and double-row suture techniques for repair of the rotator cuff.
Ninety patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomized to receive either a single-row or a double-row repair. The primary objective was to compare the Western Ontario rotator cuff index (WORC) score at twenty-four months. Secondary objectives included comparison of the constant and american shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) scores and strength between groups. Anatomical outcomes were assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasonography to determine the postoperative healing rates.
Baseline demographic data including age (p = 0.29), sex (p = 0.68), affected side (p = 0.39), and rotator cuff tear size (p = 0.28) did not differ between groups. The WORC score did not differ significantly between groups at any time point (p = 0.48 at baseline, p = 0.089 at three months, p = 0.52 at six months, p = 0.83 at twelve months, and p = 0.60 at twenty-four months). The WORC score at each postoperative time point was significantly better than the baseline value. The Constant score, ASES score, and strength did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a smaller initial tear size and double-row fixation were associated with higher healing rates.
No significant differences in functional or quality-of-life outcomes were identified between single-row and double-row fixation techniques. A smaller initial tear size and a double-row fixation technique were associated with higher healing rates as assessed with ultrasonography or MRI.
Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Available from: Tiao Lin
- "" + " indicates low risk of bias, " − " indicates high risk of bias, and " ? " indicates unclear risk of bias Koh, 2011 24 Aydin, 2010 35 Burks, 2009 34 Grasso, 2009 23 Franceschi, 2007 22 Park, 2008 (total) 27 Charousset, 2007 33 Gartsman, 2013 2 Ma, 2012 28 Carbonel, 2012 26 Lapner, 2012 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The purpose of this study was to systematically review published reports that compare the outcomes of single-row and double-row suture anchor fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Methods
Combined data regarding relevant patient characteristics, rotator cuff pathology, surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation regimens, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Scores, Constant scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) scores, tendon healing, incidence of recurrent rotator cuff defects, shoulder muscle strength, range of motion, surgical time and patient satisfaction were assessed.ResultsSeven eligible randomized controlled studies and four prospective cohort studies were identified. There were no significant differences between the single-row and double-row groups in terms of Constant or ASES scores. However, UCLA scores, tendon healing, abduction shoulder strength index (SSI), external rotation SSI and internal rotation SSI were significantly better for double-row technique than for single-row technique. A statistically significant advantage for double-row repair according to UCLA score and external rotation SSI was found in the subgroup with tears greater than 3 cm.Conclusion
No definite conclusion could be drawn about differences in overall outcomes of double- and single-row techniques for repairing for small to medium (<3 cm) or large to massive (>3 cm) rotator cuff tears, even though some measures of clinical outcome showed significant differences between these two techniques.
Orthopaedic Surgery 11/2014; 6(4). DOI:10.1111/os.12139
- "Subjective : ASES , UCLA , Constant Objective : Physical examination , SSI , ROM in degrees Imaging : MRI DR significantly improved over SR in 1 - to 3 - cm tears with respect to degrees of flexion and abduction , internal rotation SSI , and external rotation SSI DR significantly improved over SR with respect to all measured variables in 3 - to 5 - cm tears except for Constant score , abduction SSI , and external rotation SSI Lapner et al 25 ( 2012 ) SR vs DR ; clinical outcome and re - tear rate "
07/2014; 2(7):e6-e6. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.M.00081
- "Recent high-level evidence has demonstrated no significant difference in outcomes between the two techniques. For example, arthroscopic single-row and double-row techniques were compared with results showing no clinically significant difference. Transosseous equivalent studies have shown comparable clinical outcomes. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose:The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the subjective, objective, and radiographic healing outcomes of single-row (SR), double-row (DR), and transosseous equivalent (TOE) suture techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.Materials and Methods:A retrospective comparative analysis of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs by one surgeon from 2004 to 2010 at minimum 2-year followup was performed. Cohorts were matched for age, sex, and tear size. Subjective outcome variables included ASES, Constant, SST, UCLA, and SF-12 scores. Objective outcome variables included strength, active range of motion (ROM). Radiographic healing was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann — Whitney and Kruskal — Wallis tests with significance, and the Fisher exact probability test <0.05.Results:Sixty-three patients completed the study requirements (20 SR, 21 DR, 22 TOE). There was a clinically and statistically significant improvement in outcomes with all repair techniques (ASES mean improvement P = <0.0001). The mean final ASES scores were: SR 83; (SD 21.4); DR 87 (SD 18.2); TOE 87 (SD 13.2); (P = 0.73). There was a statistically significant improvement in strength for each repair technique (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between techniques across all secondary outcome assessments: ASES improvement, Constant, SST, UCLA, SF-12, ROM, Strength, and MRI re-tear rates. There was a decrease in re-tear rates from single row (22%) to double-row (18%) to transosseous equivalent (11%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.6).Conclusions:Compared to preoperatively, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, using SR, DR, or TOE techniques, yielded a clinically and statistically significant improvement in subjective and objective outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic level 3.
International Journal of Shoulder Surgery 03/2014; 8(1):15-20. DOI:10.4103/0973-6042.131850 · 0.65 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.