Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Cyclic Displacement in Single-Row and Double-Row Rotator Cuff Reconstructions Under Static External Rotation

2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olaf Lorbach ◽  
Matthias Kieb ◽  
Florian Raber ◽  
Lüder C. Busch ◽  
Dieter M. Kohn ◽  
...  

Background: The double-row suture bridge repair was recently introduced and has demonstrated superior biomechanical results and higher yield load compared with the traditional double-row technique. It therefore seemed reasonable to compare this second generation of double-row constructs to the modified single-row double mattress reconstruction. Hypothesis: The repair technique, initial tear size, and tendon subregion will have a significant effect on 3-dimensional (3D) cyclic displacement under additional static external rotation of a modified single-row compared with a double-row rotator cuff repair. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Rotator cuff tears (small to medium: 25 mm; medium to large: 35 mm) were created in 24 human cadaveric shoulders. Rotator cuff repairs were performed as modified single-row or double-row repairs, and cyclic loading (10-60 N, 10-100 N) was applied under 20° of external rotation. Radiostereometric analysis was used to calculate cyclic displacement in the anteroposterior (x), craniocaudal (y), and mediolateral (z) planes with a focus on the repair constructs and the initial tear size. Moreover, differences in cyclic displacement of the anterior compared with the posterior tendon subregions were calculated. Results: Significantly lower cyclic displacement was seen in small to medium tears for the single-row compared with double-row repair at 60 and 100 N in the x plane ( P = .001) and y plane ( P = .001). The results were similar in medium to large tears at 100 N in the x plane ( P = .004). Comparison of 25-mm versus 35-mm tears did not show any statistically significant differences for the single-row repairs. In the double-row repairs, lower gap formation was found for the 35-mm tears ( P ≤ .05). Comparison of the anterior versus posterior tendon subregions revealed a trend toward higher anterior gap formation, although this was statistically not significant. Conclusion: The tested single-row reconstruction achieved superior results in 3D cyclic displacement to the tested double-row repair. Extension of the initial rupture size did not have a negative effect on the biomechanical results of the tested constructs. Clinical Relevance: Single-row repairs with modified suture configurations provide comparable biomechanical strength to double-row repairs. Furthermore, as increased gap formation in the early postoperative period might lead to failure of the construct, a strong anterior fixation and restricted external rotation protocol might be considered in rotator cuff repairs to avoid this problem.

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

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.


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