BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled study was to compare the functional outcomes and healing rates after use of single-row and double-row suture techniques for repair of the rotator cuff. METHODS:Ninety patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomized to receive either a single-row or a double-row repair. The primary objective was to compare the Western Ontario rotator cuff index (WORC) score at twenty-four months. Secondary objectives included comparison of the constant and american shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) scores and strength between groups. Anatomical outcomes were assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasonography to determine the postoperative healing rates. RESULTS: Baseline demographic data including age (p = 0.29), sex (p = 0.68), affected side (p = 0.39), and rotator cuff tear size (p = 0.28) did not differ between groups. The WORC score did not differ significantly between groups at any time point (p = 0.48 at baseline, p = 0.089 at three months, p = 0.52 at six months, p = 0.83 at twelve months, and p = 0.60 at twenty-four months). The WORC score at each postoperative time point was significantly better than the baseline value. The Constant score, ASES score, and strength did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a smaller initial tear size and double-row fixation were associated with higher healing rates. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in functional or quality-of-life outcomes were identified between single-row and double-row fixation techniques. A smaller initial tear size and a double-row fixation technique were associated with higher healing rates as assessed with ultrasonography or MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The purpose of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind controlled study was to compare the functional outcomes and healing rates after use of single-row and double-row suture techniques for repair of the rotator cuff. METHODS: Ninety patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomized to receive either a single-row or a double-row repair. The primary objective was to compare the Western Ontario rotator cuff index (WORC) score at twenty-four months. Secondary objectives included comparison of the constant and american shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) scores and strength between groups. Anatomical outcomes were assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasonography to determine the postoperative healing rates. RESULTS: Baseline demographic data including age (p = 0.29), sex (p = 0.68), affected side (p = 0.39), and rotator cuff tear size (p = 0.28) did not differ between groups. The WORC score did not differ significantly between groups at any time point (p = 0.48 at baseline, p = 0.089 at three months, p = 0.52 at six months, p = 0.83 at twelve months, and p = 0.60 at twenty-four months). The WORC score at each postoperative time point was significantly better than the baseline value. The Constant score, ASES score, and strength did not differ significantly between groups at any time point. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a smaller initial tear size and double-row fixation were associated with higher healing rates. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in functional or quality-of-life outcomes were identified between single-row and double-row fixation techniques. A smaller initial tear size and a double-row fixation technique were associated with higher healing rates as assessed with ultrasonography or MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Mehmet Gülecyüz; Hannes Bortolotti; Matthias Pietschmann; Andreas Ficklscherer; Thomas Niethammer; Björn Roßbach; Peter Müller Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Panagiota Toliopoulos; François Desmeules; Jennifer Boudreault; Jean-Sébastien Roy; Pierre Frémont; Joy C MacDermid; Clermont E Dionne Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2014-03-30 Impact factor: 2.980
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
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