Literature DB >> 20875720

Comparative analysis of single-row versus double-row repair of rotator cuff tears.

William T Pennington1, David J Gibbons, Brian A Bartz, Maggie Dodd, James Daun, Jonathan Klinger, Milodrag Popovich, Brian Butler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our goal in this analysis was to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic healing rates of double-row (DR) transosseous-equivalent versus single-row (SR) Mason-Allen configuration (MAC) arthroscopic repair techniques.
METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized assessment of 132 arthroscopic rotator cuff repair patients included 78 SR repair patients and 54 with DR repair. Tears measured between 1.5 and 4.5 cm. Patients were evaluated with a visual analog scale; University of California, Los Angeles score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; active range of motion; and dynamometric strength. Scores and measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The SR repairs were performed with the arthroscopic MAC. For DR repairs, two 5.5-mm fully threaded Bio-Corkscrew anchors (Arthrex, Naples, FL), single loaded with FiberWire (Arthrex), were used for the medial row. The lateral row was secured with PushLock bioabsorbable anchors (Arthrex). Forty-four patients in the SR group and 37 patients in the DR group returned for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation of repair integrity between 12 and 28 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: DR repairs resulted in higher outcome scores, though not significantly. Patient satisfaction rates were 95% in the SR group and 92% in the DR group. MRI showed a statistically significantly improved healing rate with SR repair compared with DR repair in our entire patient population (P ≤ .017). A more homogeneous subset of patients with tears between 2.5 and 3.5 cm showed a significantly improved healing rate for the DR repair (P ≤ .03).
CONCLUSIONS: Our short-term results suggest that SR MAC repair provides comparable clinical results to DR repair. Although our MRI data suggest improved healing rates in our SR repairs in the entire patient population, when similar-sized tears were compared, the DR repair group showed improved radiographic healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Copyright © 2010 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20875720     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2010.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  19 in total

1.  Arthroscopic transosseous (anchorless) rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  Raffaele Garofalo; Alessandro Castagna; Mario Borroni; Sumant G Krishnan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Ignacio Carbonel; Angel Antonio Martinez; Angel Calvo; Jorge Ripalda; Antonio Herrera
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Changes in tendon length with increasing rotator cuff tear size.

Authors:  Kyung Cheon Kim; Hyun Dae Shin; Bo Kun Kim; Soo Min Cha; Jun Yeong Park
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-09-17       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance imaging criteria for the assessment of the rotator cuff after repair: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maristella F Saccomanno; Gianpiero Cazzato; Mario Fodale; Giuseppe Sircana; Giuseppe Milano
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-01-04       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Arthroscopic double-row cuff repair with suture-bridging: a structural and functional comparison of two techniques.

Authors:  P Boyer; C Bouthors; T Delcourt; O Stewart; F Hamida; G Mylle; P Massin
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Arthroscopic knotless-anchor rotator cuff repair: a clinical and radiological evaluation.

Authors:  Konstantin Hug; Christian Gerhardt; Hendrik Haneveld; Markus Scheibel
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-05-04       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Prognostic factors for clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair.

Authors:  José Otávio Reggi Pécora; Eduardo Angeli Malavolta; Jorge Henrique Assunção; Mauro Emílio Conforto Gracitelli; João Paulo Sobreiro Martins; Arnaldo Amado Ferreira
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 0.513

8.  Excellent healing rates and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic repair of medium to large rotator cuff tears with a single-row technique augmented with bone marrow vents.

Authors:  Brian D Dierckman; Jake J Ni; Ronald P Karzel; Mark H Getelman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 9.  Recent advances in shoulder research.

Authors:  Megan L Killian; Leonardo Cavinatto; Leesa M Galatz; Stavros Thomopoulos
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 5.156

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

Authors:  Cosimo Tudisco; Salvatore Bisicchia; Eugenio Savarese; Roberto Fiori; Dario A Bartolucci; Salvatore Masala; Giovanni Simonetti
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-01-27       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.