scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Single Row vs. Double Row Repair for Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears

Author(s):  
James J. Guerra ◽  
Jennifer L. Simon ◽  
Lauren M. Guerra
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 330-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
U.J. Spiegl ◽  
S.A. Euler ◽  
P.J. Millett ◽  
P. Hepp

Background: Several meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials have been performed to analyze whether double-row (DR) rotator cuff repair (RCR) provides superior clinical outcomes and structural healing compared to single-row (SR) repair. The purpose of this study was to sum up the results of meta-analysis comparing SR and DR repair with respect on clinical outcomes and re-tear rates. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify all meta-analyses dealing with randomized controlled trials comparing clinical und structural outcomes after SR versus DR RCR. Results: Eight meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: two including Level I studies only, five including both Level I and Level II studies, and one including additional Level III studies. Four meta-analyses found no differences between SR and DR RCR for patient outcomes, whereas four favored DR RCR for tears greater than 3 cm. Two meta-analyses found no structural healing differences between SR and DR RCR, whereas six found DR repair to be superior for tears greater than 3 cm tears. Conclusion: No clinical differences are seen between single-row and double-row repair for small and medium rotator cuff tears after a short-term follow-up period with a higher re-tear rate following single-row repairs. There seems to be a trend to superior results with double-row repair in large to massive tear sizes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Hantes ◽  
Yohei Ono ◽  
Vasilios A. Raoulis ◽  
Nikolaos Doxariotis ◽  
Aaron Venouziou ◽  
...  

Background: When arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is performed on a young patient, long-lasting structural and functional tendon integrity is desired. A fixation technique that potentially provides superior tendon healing should be considered for the younger population to achieve long-term clinical success. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to compare the radiological and clinical midterm results between single-row and double-row (ie, suture bridge) fixation techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients younger than 55 years. We hypothesized that a double-row technique would lead to improved tendon healing, resulting in superior mid- to long-term clinical outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A consecutive series of 66 patients younger than 55 years with a medium to large full-thickness tear of supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons who underwent arthroscopic single-row or double-row (ie, suture bridge) repair were enrolled and prospectively observed. Thirty-four and 32 patients were assigned to single-row and double-row groups, respectively. Postoperatively, tendon integrity was assessed by MRI following Sugaya’s classification at a minimum of 12 months, and clinical outcomes were assessed with the Constant score and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score at a minimum of 2 years. Results: Mean follow-up time was 46 months (range, 28-50 months). A higher tendon healing rate was obtained in the double-row group compared with the single-row group (84% and 61%, respectively [ P < .05]). Although no difference in outcome scores was observed between the 2 techniques, patients with healed tendon demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared with patients who had retorn tendon (UCLA score, 34.2 and 27.6, respectively [ P < .05]; Constant score, 94 and 76, respectively [ P < .05]). Conclusion: The double-row repair technique potentially provides superior tendon healing compared with the single-row technique. Double-row repair should be considered for patients younger than 55 years with medium to large rotator cuff tears.


Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (29) ◽  
pp. e21030
Author(s):  
Yanming Lin ◽  
Jiasong Zhao ◽  
Heng Qiu ◽  
Yong Huang

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. e223-e225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan D. Faulkner ◽  
Mark H. Getelman ◽  
Joseph P. Burns ◽  
Michael S. Bahk ◽  
Ronald P. Karzel ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 978-985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niti Prasathaporn ◽  
Somsak Kuptniratsaikul ◽  
Kitiphong Kongrukgreatiyos

JBJS Reviews ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Roth ◽  
Ryan J. Warth ◽  
Jared T. Lee ◽  
Peter J. Millett ◽  
Neal S. ElAttrache

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document