Single-row vs. double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Clinical and 3 Tesla MR arthrography results

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Impact Factor: 1.72). 01/2013; 14(1):43. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-43
Source: PubMed


Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become popular in the last few years because it avoids large skin incisions and deltoid detachment and dysfunction. Earlier arthroscopic single-row (SR) repair methods achieved only partial restoration of the original footprint of the tendons of the rotator cuff, while double-row (DR) repair methods presented many biomechanical advantages and higher rates of tendon-to-bone healing. However, DR repair failed to demonstrate better clinical results than SR repair in clinical trials. MR imaging at 3 Tesla, especially with intra-articular contrast medium (MRA), showed a better diagnostic performance than 1.5 Tesla in the musculoskeletal setting. The objective of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical and 3 Tesla MRA results in two groups of patients operated on for a medium-sized full-thickness rotator cuff tear with two different techniques.

The first group consisted of 20 patients operated on with the SR technique; the second group consisted of 20 patients operated on with the DR technique. All patients were evaluated at a minimum of 3 years after surgery. The primary end point was the re-tear rate at 3 Tesla MRA. The secondary end points were the Constant-Murley Scale (CMS), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, surgical time and implant expense.

The mean follow-up was 40 months in the SR group and 38.9 months in the DR group. The mean postoperative CMS was 70 in the SR group and 68 in the DR group. The mean SST score was 9.4 in the SR group and 10.1 in the DR group. The re-tear rate was 60% in the SR group and 25% in the DR group. Leakage of the contrast medium was observed in all patients.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on 3 Tesla MRA in the evaluation of two different techniques of rotator cuff repair. DR repair resulted in a statistically significant lower re-tear rate, with longer surgical time and higher implant expense, despite no difference in clinical outcomes. We think that leakage of the contrast medium is due to an incomplete tendon-to-bone sealing, which is not a re-tear. This phenomenon could have important medicolegal implications. Level of evidence III. Treatment study: Case-control study.

Download full-text


Available from: Cosimo Tudisco, Jan 03, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available level I randomized controlled trials comparing single-row with double-row repair to statistically compare clinical outcomes and imaging-diagnosed re-tear rates. A literature search was undertaken to identify all level I randomized controlled trials comparing structural or clinical outcomes after single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcomes measures included in the meta-analysis were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, and Constant scores; structural outcomes included imaging-confirmed re-tears. Meta-analyses compared raw mean differences in outcomes measures and relative risk ratios for imaging-diagnosed re-tears after single-row or double-row repairs by a random-effects model. The literature search identified a total of 7 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, or Constant scores between the single-row and double-row groups (P = .440, .116, and .156, respectively). The overall re-tear rate was 25.9% (68/263) in the single-row group and 14.2% (37/261) in the double-row group. There was a statistically significant increased risk of sustaining an imaging-proven re-tear of any type in the single-row group (relative risk, 1.76 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.48]; P = .001), with partial-thickness re-tears accounting for the majority of this difference (relative risk, 1.99 [95% confidence interval, 1.40-3.82]; P = .039). Single-row repairs resulted in significantly higher re-tear rates compared with double-row repairs, especially with regard to partial-thickness re-tears. However, there were no detectable differences in improvement in outcomes scores between single-row and double-row repairs.
    Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.] 01/2014; 23(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2013.10.006 · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction To determine whether immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair improved tendon healing compared with early passive motion. Materials and methods A systematic electronic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early passive motion with immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The primary outcome assessed was tendon healing in the repaired cuff. Secondary outcome measures were range of motion (ROM) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder scale, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores. Pooled analyses were performed using a random effects model to obtain summary estimates of treatment effect with 95 % confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among included studies was quantified. Results Three RCTs examining 265 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in tendon healing in the repaired cuff between the early-motion and immobilization groups. A significant difference in external rotation at 6 months postoperatively favored early motion over immobilization, but no significant difference was observed at 1 year postoperatively. In one study, Constant scores were slightly higher in the early-motion group than in the immobilization group. Two studies found no significant difference in ASES, SST, or VAS score between groups. Conclusion We found no evidence that immobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was superior to early-motion rehabilitation in terms of tendon healing or clinical outcome. Patients in the early-motion group may recover ROM more rapidly. Level of evidence Level II; systematic review of levels I and II studies.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 06/2014; 134(9). DOI:10.1007/s00402-014-2028-2 · 1.60 Impact Factor

  • 07/2014; 2(7):e6-e6. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.M.00081
Show more