BACKGROUND: 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. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic double-row repair of a rotator cuff tear has superior clinical outcome to single-row repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. HYPOTHESIS: Arthroscopic double-row repair of a rotator cuff tear has superior clinical outcome to single-row repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Marc Tompkins; Keith O Monchik; Matthew J Plante; Braden C Fleming; Paul D Fadale Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.342