Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
Systematic ReviewClinical Outcomes of Double-Row Versus Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repairs
Section snippets
Methods
A systematic review was performed to investigate the clinical outcomes of DR versus SR rotator cuff repair techniques. EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and OVID were searched from their earliest points to August 1, 2009. The search terms “double-row and single-row and rotator cuff” were used. A total of 35 articles were identified with this search. A hand search of the last 6 months of issues of appropriate journals was performed, including the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and
Results
The data from the 5 prospective studies were collected and summarized (Table 1). The outcome measures varied between studies, although 4 of 5 used the Constant score as a functional assessment. The use of an imaging modality postoperatively was not an inclusion criterion of the review; however, it is noted that 3 of the 5 studies included this outcome measure to evaluate postoperative healing in addition to clinical evaluation.
One Level II prospective cohort study, conducted by Charousset et
Discussion
This systematic review of the clinical evidence to date shows no clinically significant difference between SR and DR rotator cuff repair techniques. Only 5 Level I or Level II studies have been published to date. Both techniques result in significant clinical improvement for patients, but there was no statistically significant clinical difference between the 2 approaches. At short-term follow-up with a minimum of at least 1 year, clinical outcomes for both the DR and SR arthroscopic rotator
Conclusions
This systematic review of arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears shows that DR repair does not result in significantly different clinical outcomes than SR repair, at least in the short term. Although numerous biomechanical studies have shown that the DR repair technique provides a significantly improved repair with regard to strength, gap formation, failure, and re-creation of the anatomic footprint,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 this advantage does not appear to lead to an
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge Jack Carlisle, M.D., and Rick Wright, M.D., for their contributions in the preparation of this review.
References (23)
- et al.
Cuff integrity after arthroscopic versus open rotator cuff repair: A prospective study
J Shoulder Elbow Surg
(2006) - et al.
Evaluation of residual rotator cuff defects after in vivo single- versus double-row rotator cuff repairs
Arthroscopy
(2006) - et al.
The effect of double-row fixation on initial repair strength in rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical study
Arthroscopy
(2006) - et al.
Single-row modified Mason-Allen versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical and surface area comparison
Arthroscopy
(2008) - et al.
Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A prospective randomized clinical study
Arthroscopy
(2009) - et al.
Functional and structural outcome after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Single-row versus dual-row fixation
Arthroscopy
(2005) - et al.
The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2004) - et al.
Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: Does the tendon really heal?
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2005) - et al.
Repairs of the rotator cuff: Correlation of functional results with integrity of the cuff
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(1991) - et al.
Biomechanical performance of rotator cuff repairs with humeral rotation: A few rotator cuff repair failure model
Am J Sports Med
(2008)
Biomechanical characteristics of single-row repair in comparison to double-row repair with consideration of the suture configuration and suture material
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Cited by (0)
The authors report no conflict of interest.