scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, Is There a Difference in the Results of Repair Made With Single or Double Rows According to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Materials and MethodsThe study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. ResultsThe mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05).ConclusionsNo significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, is there a Difference in the Results of Repair made with Single or Double Rows according to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Methods: The study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. Results: The mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). Conclusions: No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

Arthroscopic Single-Row versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1861-1868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augustus D. Mazzocca ◽  
Peter J. Millett ◽  
Carlos A. Guanche ◽  
Stephen A. Santangelo ◽  
Robert A. Arciero
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Load To Failure ◽  
Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Repair Techniques

Background Recurrent defects after open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair are common. Double-row repair techniques may improve initial fixation and quality of rotator cuff repair. Purpose To evaluate the load to failure, cyclic displacement, and anatomical footprint of 4 arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques. Hypothesis Double-row suture anchor repair would have superior structural properties and would create a larger footprint compared to single-row repair. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to 4 arthroscopic repair techniques. The repair was performed as either a single-row technique or 1 of 3 double-row techniques: diamond, mattress double anchor, or modified mattress double anchor. Angle of loading, anchor type, bone mineral density, anchor distribution, angle of anchor insertion, arthroscopic technique, and suture type and size were all controlled. Footprint length and width were quantified before and after repair. Displacement with cyclic loading and load to failure were determined. Results There were no differences in load to failure and displacement with cyclic loading between the single-row repair and each double-row repair. All repair groups demonstrated load to failure greater than 250 N. A significantly greater supraspinatus footprint width was seen with double-row techniques compared to single-row repair. Conclusions The single-row repair technique was similar to the double-row techniques in load to failure, cyclic displacement, and gap formation. The double-row anchor repairs consistently restored a larger footprint than did the single-row method. Clinical Relevance The arthroscopic techniques studied have strong structural properties that approached the reported performance of open repair techniques. Double-row techniques provide a larger footprint width; although not addressed by this study, such a factor may improve the biological quality of repair.

Contact Area, Contact Pressure, and Pressure Patterns of the Tendon-Bone Interface after Rotator Cuff Repair

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1869-1874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilihamu Tuoheti ◽  
Eiji Itoi ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Nobutoshi Seki ◽  
Hidekazu Abe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Contact Pressure ◽  
Contact Area ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Bone Interface ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background The contact pressure and contact area at the tendon-bone interface after the most commonly used rotator cuff repair methods have not been investigated. Hypothesis There are no significant differences among the transosseous, the single-row suture anchor, and the double-row suture anchor techniques in terms of contact pressure, contact area, and pressure patterns at the tendon-bone interface. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods After creating a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear in 10 cadaveric shoulder specimens, we inserted pressure-sensitive film between the tendon stump and the bone, and we repaired the tear by (1) transosseous, (2) single-row suture anchor, and (3) double-row suture anchor techniques. Results The contact area of the double-row technique was 42% greater than that of the transosseous technique (P <. 0001) and 60% greater than that of the single-row technique. The contact area of the transosseous technique was 31% greater than that of the single-row technique (P =. 0015). The average pressures of the single-row and double-row techniques were 18% (P =. 014) and 16% (P =. 03) greater, respectively, than that of the transosseous technique, but there was no significant difference between the single-row and double-row techniques (P =. 915). Conclusions The double-row technique produced the greatest contact area and the second-highest contact pressure, whereas the single-row technique created the highest contact pressure and the least contact area. The transosseous technique produced the second-greatest contact area and the least contact pressure. Clinical Relevance The double-row suture anchor technique and the transosseous technique may provide a better environment for tendon healing.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair: a comprehensive review of the literature

SICOT-J ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuri Aydin ◽  
Bedri Karaismailoglu ◽  
Mert Gurcan ◽  
Mahmut Kursat Ozsahin
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Tendon Healing ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Repair Technique ◽  
Medial Side ◽  
Cuff Repair

Rotator cuff repairs seek to achieve adequate tendon fixation and to secure the fixation during the process of biological healing. Currently, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become the gold standard. One of the earliest defined techniques is single-row repair but the inadequacy of single-row repair to precisely restore the anatomical footprint as well as the significant rates of retear especially in large tears have led surgeons to seek other techniques. Double-row repair techniques, which have been developed in response to these concerns, have various modifications like the number and placement of anchors and suture configurations. When the literature is reviewed, it is possible to say that double-row repairs demonstrate superior biomechanical properties. In regard to retear rates, both double row and transosseous equivalent (TOE) techniques have also yielded more favorable outcomes compared to single-row repair. But the clinical results are conflicting and more studies have to be conducted. However, it is more probable that superior structural integrity will yield better structural and functional results in the long run. TOE repair technique is regarded as promising in terms of better biomechanics and healing since it provides better footprint contact. Knotless TOE structures are believed to reduce impingement on the medial side of tendons and thus aid in tendon nutrition; however, there are not enough studies about its effectiveness. It is important to optimize the costs without endangering the treatment of the patients. We believe that the arthroscopic TOE repair technique will yield superior results in regard to both repair integrity and functionality, especially with tears larger than 3 cm. Although defining the pattern of the tear is one of the most important guiding steps when selecting the repair technique, the surgeon should not forget to evaluate every patient individually for tendon healing capacity and functional expectations.

The Effect of Abduction and Rotation on Footprint Contact for Single-Row, Double-Row, and Modified Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1599-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell C. Park ◽  
Joseph M. Pirolo ◽  
Chong J. Park ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Tendon Repair ◽  
Abduction Angle ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Bone Contact ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background An abduction pillow and abduction and rotation exercises are commonly used after rotator cuff repair. The effect of glenohumeral abduction and rotation on footprint contact has not been elucidated. Hypothesis Abduction will decrease tendon-to-bone contact for all repairs. A modified double-row repair will maintain footprint contact more effectively at each position of humeral abduction and rotation than double- or single-row repairs. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods In 6 fresh-frozen human shoulders, a modified double-row supraspinatus tendon repair was performed; a suture limb from each of 2 medial anchors was bridged over the tendon and fixed laterally. Double- and single-row repairs were performed sequentially; a total of 3 repairs were tested. For all repairs, a Tekscan pressure sensor was fixed at the tendon-footprint interface. The tendon was loaded with 30 N. The shoulders were tested at 0°, 30°, and 60° of abduction with 0° of rotation. For both dual-row repairs, 5 rotation positions were tested. Results The greatest contact areas at neutral rotation were achieved at 0° of abduction for the modified double-row, double-row, and single-row repairs (151.3 ± 10.7 mm2, 80.7 ± 30.0 mm2, and 61.3 ± 26.1 mm2, respectively), with values decreasing as abduction increased. Each repair was significantly different from one another at each abduction angle (P <. 05), except between single-and double-row repairs at 0° of abduction. Mean interface pressure exerted over the footprint was greater for the modified double-row technique than for the other techniques at each abduction angle (P <. 05). With respect to rotation, the modified double-row repair had significantly more footprint contact than did the double-row repair at each position tested (P <. 05). Conclusion For a given repair, increasing abduction at neutral rotation reduced footprint contact. Internal rotation to 60° provided among the highest contact measurements. The modified double-row technique provided the most contact. Clinical Relevance Results are consistent with the practice of immobilizing the shoulder with 30° or less of abduction and up to 60° of internal rotation to optimize footprint contact. A dual-row repair may maximize contact when initiating rehabilitation that involves abduction and rotation.

Can a Double-Row Anchorage Technique Improve Tendon Healing in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1247-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Charousset ◽  
Jean Grimberg ◽  
Louis Denis Duranthon ◽  
Laurance Bellaiche ◽  
David Petrover
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Constant Score ◽  
Tendon Healing ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background Increasing the rate of watertight tendon healing has been suggested as an important criterion for optimizing clinical results in rotator cuff arthroscopic repair. Hypothesis A double-row anchorage technique for rotator cuff repair will produce better clinical results and a better rate of tendon healing than a single-row technique. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods We compared 31 patients undergoing surgery with a double-row anchorage technique using Panalok anchors and Cuff Tack anchors and 35 patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing surgery with a single-row anchorage arthroscopic technique using Panalok anchors. We compared pre- and postoperative Constant score and tendon healing, as evaluated by computed tomographic arthrography 6 months after surgery, in these 2 groups. Results The Constant score increased significantly in both groups, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = .4). Rotator cuff healing was judged anatomic in 19 patients with double-row anchorage and in 14 patients with single-row anchorage; this difference between the groups was significant (P = .03). Conclusion In this first study comparing double- and single-row anchorage techniques, we found no significant difference in clinical results, but tendon healing rates were better with the double-row anchorage. Improvements in the double-row technique might lead to better clinical and tendon healing results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document