Single-Row Versus Double-Row Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

Villa Valeria Clinic, Rome, Italy.
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.19). 01/2009; 25(1):4-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.09.018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques.
Eighty patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic repair with suture anchors. They were divided into 2 groups of 40 patients according to repair technique: single row (group 1) or double row (group 2). Results were evaluated by use of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Work-DASH self-administered questionnaires, normalized Constant score, and muscle strength measurement. On analyzing the results at a 2-year follow-up, we considered the following independent variables: baseline scores; age; gender; dominance; location, shape, and area of cuff tear; tendon retraction; fatty degeneration; treatment of biceps tendon; and rotator cuff repair technique (anchors or anchors and side to side). Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to determine which variables were independently associated with the outcome. Significance was set at P < .05.
Of the patients, 8 (10%) were lost to follow-up. Comparison between groups did not show significant differences for each variable considered. Overall, according to the results, the mean DASH scores were 15.4 +/- 15.6 points in group 1 and 12.7 +/- 10.1 points in group 2; the mean Work-DASH scores were 16.0 +/- 22.0 points and 9.6 +/- 13.3 points, respectively; and the mean Constant scores were 100.5 +/- 17.8 points and 104.9 +/- 21.8 points, respectively. Muscle strength was 12.7 +/- 5.7 lb in group 1 and 12.9 +/- 7.0 lb in group 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that only age, gender, and baseline strength significantly and independently influenced the outcome. Differences between groups 1 and 2 were not significant.
At short-term follow-up, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the double-row technique showed no significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair.
Level I, high-quality randomized controlled trial with no statistically significant differences but narrow confidence intervals.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trotz technischer und biomechanischer Weiterentwicklungen von Rekonstruktionstechniken der Rotatorenmanschette (RM) konnten nur geringe Fortschritte hinsichtlich der Rate von Redefekten bzw. Rerupturen erzielt werden. Neuartige Defektmuster legen den Verdacht der Sehnenstrangulation nahe und verlagerten den wissenschaftlichen Fokus auf die Adressierung auch biologischer Charakteristika. Der vorliegende Artikel stellt eine aktuelle Literaturübersicht zu biologischen Aspekten der RM-Reintegration dar. Dazu werden experimentelle sowie klinische Arbeiten gegenübergestellt, welche den Einfluss von Wachstumsfaktoren und Grafts bzw. Scaffolds untersuchen. Zusammengefasst existieren vielversprechende Ansätze zur biologischen Augmentierung, wovon jedoch bisher nur wenige den Transfer in die klinische Anwendung erfahren haben. Abstract Despite biomechanical and technical developments in rotator cuff repair techniques, only limited improvement has been achieved with regard to re-defect or re-tear rates. New re-defect patterns suggest potential tendon strangulation and have shifted the scientific focus towards the biological requirements of successful rotator cuff reintegration. The present article summarizes current studies on biological aspects of rotator cuff repair augmentation. Experimental and clinical studies on growth factors and scaffolds are presented. Although several promising approaches in this regard are available, only few have been transferred to clinical application so far.
    Obere Extremität 03/2015; 10(1):17-23. DOI:10.1007/s11678-015-0305-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Repair of the torn rotator cuff has evolved considerably over the past several decades. Traditionally, open surgical repairs were used to achieve tendon-to-bone fixation. As arthroscopic skill and instrumentation improved, a similar evolution of arthroscopic repair techniques has occurred. In many respects, arthroscopic repair strategies have evolved to replicate and improve upon the biomechanical properties of traditional transosseous rotator cuff repair. This review discusses the rationale responsible for this evolution, current technical strategies, and indications for different types of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair constructs.
    Techniques in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 01/2012; 13(2):55-59. DOI:10.1097/BTE.0b013e31824aeae1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rotator cuff repair has been shown to have good long-term results. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of repairs still fail to heal. Many factors, both patient and surgeon related, can influence healing after repair. Older age, larger tear size, worse muscle quality, greater muscle-tendon unit retraction, smoking, osteoporosis, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia have all shown to negatively influence tendon healing. Surgeon related factors that can influence healing include repair construct-single vs double row, rehabilitation, and biologics including platelet rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cells. Double-row repairs are biomechanically stronger and have better healing rates compared with single-row repairs although clinical outcomes are equivalent between both constructs. Slower, less aggressive rehabilitation programs have demonstrated improved healing with no negative effect on final range of motion and are therefore recommended after repair of most full thickness tears. Additionally no definitive evidence supports the use of platelet rich plasma or mesenchymal stem cells regarding improvement of healing rates and clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to identify effective biologically directed augmentations that will improve healing rates and clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair.
    03/2015; 6(2):211-20. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.211