BACKGROUND: The advantage of single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques has been a controversial issue in sports medicine and shoulder surgery. There is biomechanical evidence that double-row techniques are superior to single-row techniques; however, there is no clinical evidence that the double-row technique provides an improved functional outcome. HYPOTHESIS: When compared with single-row rotator cuff repair, double-row fixation, although biomechanically superior, has no clinical benefit with respect to retear rate or improved functional outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The authors reviewed prospective studies of level I or II clinical evidence that compared the efficacy of single- and double-row rotator cuff repairs. Functional outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder scale, the Constant shoulder score, and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale. Radiographic failures and complications were also analyzed. A test of heterogeneity for patient demographics was also performed to determine if there were differences in the patient profiles across the included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The test of heterogeneity across these studies showed no differences. The functional ASES, Constant, and UCLA outcome scores revealed no difference between single- and double-row rotator cuff repairs. The total retear rate, which included both complete and partial retears, was 43.1% for the single-row repair and 27.2% for the double-row repair (P = .057), representing a trend toward higher failures in the single-row group. CONCLUSION: Through a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of current arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs, we found that the single-row repairs did not differ from the double-row repairs in functional outcome scores. The double-row repairs revealed a trend toward a lower radiographic proven retear rate, although the data did not reach statistical significance. There may be a concerning trend toward higher retear rates in patients undergoing a single-row repair, but further studies are required.
BACKGROUND: The advantage of single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques has been a controversial issue in sports medicine and shoulder surgery. There is biomechanical evidence that double-row techniques are superior to single-row techniques; however, there is no clinical evidence that the double-row technique provides an improved functional outcome. HYPOTHESIS: When compared with single-row rotator cuff repair, double-row fixation, although biomechanically superior, has no clinical benefit with respect to retear rate or improved functional outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The authors reviewed prospective studies of level I or II clinical evidence that compared the efficacy of single- and double-row rotator cuff repairs. Functional outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder scale, the Constant shoulder score, and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale. Radiographic failures and complications were also analyzed. A test of heterogeneity for patient demographics was also performed to determine if there were differences in the patient profiles across the included studies. RESULTS: Seven studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The test of heterogeneity across these studies showed no differences. The functional ASES, Constant, and UCLA outcome scores revealed no difference between single- and double-row rotator cuff repairs. The total retear rate, which included both complete and partial retears, was 43.1% for the single-row repair and 27.2% for the double-row repair (P = .057), representing a trend toward higher failures in the single-row group. CONCLUSION: Through a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of current arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs, we found that the single-row repairs did not differ from the double-row repairs in functional outcome scores. The double-row repairs revealed a trend toward a lower radiographic proven retear rate, although the data did not reach statistical significance. There may be a concerning trend toward higher retear rates in patients undergoing a single-row repair, but further studies are required.
Authors: Daniel Whelan; Jeff Leiter; Treny Sasyniuk; Robert Litchfield; John Randle; Scott Hughes; Peter MacDonald Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Olaf Lorbach; Mike H Baums; Tanja Kostuj; Stephan Pauly; Markus Scheibel; Andrew Carr; Nasim Zargar; Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-01-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Maristella F Saccomanno; Giuseppe Sircana; Gianpiero Cazzato; Fabrizio Donati; Pietro Randelli; Giuseppe Milano Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.342
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
Authors: Stephen W Linderman; Mikhail Golman; Thomas R Gardner; Victor Birman; William N Levine; Guy M Genin; Stavros Thomopoulos Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 8.947