PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to critically assess whether there are differences in clinical outcomes between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair in prospective randomized Level I studies. METHODS: Using Medline, Scopus, Scirus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the Cochrane Library, as well as a hand search, we searched for randomized prospective trials comparing single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair. The functional outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder scale, the Constant shoulder score, and the University of California, Los Angeles shoulder rating scale. A test of heterogeneity was performed to determine whether there was a difference across the included studies. RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria. A test of heterogeneity showed no difference across these studies. The functional American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Constant; and University of California, Los Angeles outcomes scores showed no difference between single- and double-row rotator cuff repair. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair in a meta-analysis of Level I studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to critically assess whether there are differences in clinical outcomes between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair in prospective randomized Level I studies. METHODS: Using Medline, Scopus, Scirus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the Cochrane Library, as well as a hand search, we searched for randomized prospective trials comparing single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair. The functional outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder scale, the Constant shoulder score, and the University of California, Los Angeles shoulder rating scale. A test of heterogeneity was performed to determine whether there was a difference across the included studies. RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria. A test of heterogeneity showed no difference across these studies. The functional American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; Constant; and University of California, Los Angeles outcomes scores showed no difference between single- and double-row rotator cuff repair. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair in a meta-analysis of Level I studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled studies.
Authors: Desmond John Bokor; David Sonnabend; Luke Deady; Ben Cass; Allan Young; Craig Van Kampen; Steven Arnoczky Journal: Muscles Ligaments Tendons J Date: 2015-10-20
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: Kathleen A Derwin; Sambit Sahoo; Alexander Zajichek; Gregory Strnad; Kurt P Spindler; Joseph P Iannotti; Eric T Ricchetti Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 3.019