Comparison of the clinical outcomes of single- and double-row repairs in rotator cuff tears.
ABSTRACT 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.
SourceAvailable from: Evan W James[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of all Level I and Level II studies comparing the clinical or structural outcomes, or both, after rotator cuff repair with and without platelet-rich product (PRP) supplementation. A literature search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify all Level I or II studies comparing the clinical or structural outcomes, or both, after arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with (PRP+ group) and without (PRP- group) PRP supplementation. Data included outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], University of California Los Angeles [UCLA], Constant, Simple Shoulder Test [SST] and visual analog scale [VAS] scores) and retears diagnosed with imaging studies. Meta-analyses compared preoperative, postoperative, and gain in outcome scores and relative risk ratios for retears. Meta-regression compared the effect of PRP treatment on outcome scores and retear rates according to 6 covariates. Minimum effect sizes that were detectable with 80% power were also calculated for each study. Eleven studies were included in this review and a maximum of 8 studies were used for meta-analyses according to data availability. There were no statistically significant differences between the PRP+ and PRP- groups for overall outcome scores or retear rates (P > .05). Overall gain in the Constant score was decreased when liquid PRP was injected over the tendon surface compared with PRP application at the tendon-bone interface (-6.88 points v +0.78 points, respectively; P = .046); however, this difference did not reach the previously reported minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for Constant scores. When the initial tear size was greater than 3 cm in anterior-posterior length, the PRP+ group exhibited decreased retear rates after double-row repairs when compared with the PRP- group (25.9% v 57.1%, respectively; P = .046). Sensitivity power analyses revealed that most included studies were only powered to detect large differences in outcome scores between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in overall gain in outcome scores or retear rates between treatment groups. Gain in Constant scores was significantly increased when PRPs were applied at the tendon-bone interface when compared with application over the top of the repaired tendon. Retear rates were significantly decreased when PRPs were used for the treatment of tears greater than 3 cm in anterior-posterior length using a double-row technique. Most of the included studies were only powered to detect large differences in outcome scores between treatment groups. In addition, an increased risk for selection, performance, and attrition biases was found. Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and Level II studies. Copyright © 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.09.007 · 3.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose: To compare the mid-term clinical results of arthroscopic and open repair for large to massive rotator cuff tear. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 48 patients who underwent either arthroscopic or open repair for large to massive rotator cuff tear. 28 patients underwent arthroscopic repair and 20 patients had open repair. The clinical outcome for the 2 groups was evaluated using range of motion, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and function, American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score and Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS) score. Results: The range of motion, VAS for pain and function and ASES score was improved significantly in both groups at the final follow-up visit compared with preoperative values. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups statistically (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups statistically at the final follow-up KSS score (p>0.05) either. Conclusion: We could obtain improved mid-term clinical outcomes in both arthroscopic repair and open repair without any statistically significant differences between the two groups.12/2011; 14(2). DOI:10.5397/CiSE.2011.14.2.222
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective 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