PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the long-term functional outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and (2) compare double-row (DR) and single-row (SR) repairs. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of massive RCTs treated with an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair over an 8-year period. Minimum 5-year follow-up was available for 126 repairs at a mean of 99 months. Among 107 complete repairs, there were 62 SR and 45 DR repairs. Functional outcome was determined by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. A multivariate analysis was performed to examine the role of a DR repair. RESULTS: For all repairs combined, improvements were observed in forward flexion (132° v 168°), pain (6.3 v 1.3), UCLA score (15.7 v 30.7), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (41.7 v 85.7) (P < .001). A good or excellent outcome, obtained in 78% of cases, was associated with a complete repair (P = .035) and a DR repair (P = .008). When we excluded partial repairs, postoperative UCLA gain was greater after a DR repair (P = .007). Patients reported their shoulder as feeling closer to normal after a DR repair compared with an SR repair (93.5% v 84.4%, P = .006). A DR repair was 4.9 times more likely to lead to a good or excellent outcome (P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: When a DR repair of a massive RCT is possible, on the basis of the ability to mobilize the tendons, a better long-term functional outcome can be expected compared with an SR repair. Given the known high risk of recurrence after repair of massive RCTs and the knowledge that functional outcome is related to recurrence, a DR repair of massive RCTs should be performed when there is sufficient tendon mobility.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate the long-term functional outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of massive rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and (2) compare double-row (DR) and single-row (SR) repairs. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of massive RCTs treated with an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair over an 8-year period. Minimum 5-year follow-up was available for 126 repairs at a mean of 99 months. Among 107 complete repairs, there were 62 SR and 45 DR repairs. Functional outcome was determined by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. A multivariate analysis was performed to examine the role of a DR repair. RESULTS: For all repairs combined, improvements were observed in forward flexion (132° v 168°), pain (6.3 v 1.3), UCLA score (15.7 v 30.7), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (41.7 v 85.7) (P < .001). A good or excellent outcome, obtained in 78% of cases, was associated with a complete repair (P = .035) and a DR repair (P = .008). When we excluded partial repairs, postoperative UCLA gain was greater after a DR repair (P = .007). Patients reported their shoulder as feeling closer to normal after a DR repair compared with an SR repair (93.5% v 84.4%, P = .006). A DR repair was 4.9 times more likely to lead to a good or excellent outcome (P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: When a DR repair of a massive RCT is possible, on the basis of the ability to mobilize the tendons, a better long-term functional outcome can be expected compared with an SR repair. Given the known high risk of recurrence after repair of massive RCTs and the knowledge that functional outcome is related to recurrence, a DR repair of massive RCTs should be performed when there is sufficient tendon mobility.