Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Single- and Double-row Repairs in Rotator Cuff Tears

Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. drpark@chol.comor
The American Journal of Sports Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.36). 07/2008; 36(7):1310-6. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508315039
Source: PubMed


Although research has demonstrated the superiority of double-row rotator cuff repair over single-row methods from a biological and mechanical point of view, few studies have compared clinical outcome of the 2 methods, and no articles have been published describing the superiority of double-row methods in clinical aspects.
Arthroscopic double-row repair of a rotator cuff tear has superior clinical outcome to single-row repair.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
The study included 78 patients operated on for full-thickness rotator cuff tears between May 2002 and May 2004. A single-row fixation method was used in the first consecutive 40 patients, and a double-row fixation method was used in the next consecutive 38 patients. The mean age at surgery was 56 years. At 2 years after surgery, final evaluation was done with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scoring systems and the Shoulder Strength Index. The Shoulder Strength Index is a new evaluation method to estimate relative shoulder strength compared with the unaffected shoulder.
At final follow-up, the average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were 91.6 in the single-row group and 93.0 in the double-row group. The Constant score was 76.7 in the single-row group and 80.0 in the double-row group. Functional outcome was improved in both groups after surgery, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. When the patients were further divided by size of tear, there was still no difference between the repair techniques in the patients with small to medium (<3 cm) tears. However, in patients with large to massive tears (>3 cm), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores and Shoulder Strength Index were all significantly better in the group that had double-row repair.
Small to medium rotator cuff tears should be repaired with the single-row method, and large to massive tears should be repaired with the double-row method.

1 Follower
7 Reads
  • Source
    • "Another study was excluded because the article did not report the standard differentiation of the data [11]. Therefore, 8 studies matched the selection criteria and were suitable for meta-analysis [8], [10], [13]–[15], [17], [21], [22]; 6 were prospective randomized control trials, and 2 were prospective cohort studies [13], [17] (Figure 1). A total of 619 patients (311 single row and 308 double row) were enrolled in the studies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The single-row and double-row fixation techniques have been widely used for rotator cuff tears. However, whether the double-row technique produces superior clinical or anatomic outcomes is still considered controversial. This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare the clinical and anatomical outcomes between the two techniques. The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies published before November 1, 2012. Studies clearly reporting a comparison of the single-row and double-row techniques were selected. The Constant, ASES, and UCLA scale systems and the rotator cuff integrity rate were evaluated. The weighted mean differences and relative risks were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean differences of the ASES (-0.84; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%) and UCLA (-0.75; P = 0.007; I(2) = 0%) scales were significantly low in the single-row group for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. For tear sizes smaller than 3 cm, no significant difference was found between the groups no matter in Constant (P = 0.95; I(2) = 0%), ASES (P = 0.77; I(2) = 0%), or UCLA (P = 0.24; I(2) = 13%) scales. For tear sizes larger than 3 cm, the ASES (-1.95; P = 0.001; I(2) = 49%) and UCLA (-1.17; P = 0.006; I(2) = 0%) scales were markedly lower in the single-row group. The integrity of the rotator cuff (0.81; P = 0.0004; I(2) = 10%) was greater and the partial thickness retear rate (1.93; P = 0.007; I(2) = 10%) was less in the double-row group. Full-thickness retears showed no difference between the groups (P = 0.15; I(2) = 0%). The meta-analysis suggests that the double-row fixation technique increases post-operative rotator cuff integrity and improves the clinical outcomes, especially for full-thickness rotator cuff tears larger than 3 cm. For tear sizes smaller than 3 cm, there was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the two techniques. Level I.
    PLoS ONE 07/2013; 8(7):e68515. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0068515 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There are few studies in literature directly comparing the clinical results of SR and DR repair in the same setting, and none of them demonstrated any statistically significant difference between the two techniques [20,24-27,44,45]. Our clinical results agree with those previously reported in literature; in fact, the SR and DR groups showed similar results on the CMS and SST, without any statistically significant difference. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 01/2013; 14(1):43. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-14-43 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Current clinical data indicate that 50% of surgically repaired shoulder cuff tears do not heal properly [3], [5], [6]. These poor healing rates are independent of the surgical procedure used [6]–[8] and the poor healing is statistically linked to a negative clinical outcome [6]. Several extrinsic and intrinsic mechanisms have been proposed to explain the development of rotator cuff disease [3], [9]–[11]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The enthesis, which attaches the tendon to the bone, naturally disappears with aging, thus limiting joint mobility. Surgery is frequently needed but the clinical outcome is often poor due to the decreased natural healing capacity of the elderly. This study explored the benefits of a treatment based on injecting chondrocyte and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in a new rat model of degenerative enthesis repair. The Achilles' tendon was cut and the enthesis destroyed. The damage was repaired by classical surgery without cell injection (group G1, n = 52) and with chondrocyte (group G2, n = 51) or MSC injection (group G3, n = 39). The healing rate was determined macroscopically 15, 30 and 45 days later. The production and organization of a new enthesis was assessed by histological scoring of collagen II immunostaining, glycoaminoglycan production and the presence of columnar chondrocytes. The biomechanical load required to rupture the bone-tendon junction was determined. The spontaneous healing rate in the G1 control group was 40%, close to those observed in humans. Cell injection significantly improved healing (69%, p = 0.0028 for G2 and p = 0.006 for G3) and the load-to-failure after 45 days (p<0.05) over controls. A new enthesis was clearly produced in cell-injected G2 and G3 rats, but not in the controls. Only the MSC-injected G3 rats had an organized enthesis with columnar chondrocytes as in a native enthesis 45 days after surgery. Cell therapy is an efficient procedure for reconstructing degenerative entheses. MSC treatment produced better organ regeneration than chondrocyte treatment. The morphological and biomechanical properties were similar to those of a native enthesis.
    PLoS ONE 08/2010; 5(8):e12248. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0012248 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more