Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of arthroscopic rotator
cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques.
Methods
Eighty patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic repair
with suture anchors. They were divided into 2 groups of 40 patients according to repair
technique: single row (group 1) or double row (group 2). Results were evaluated by
use of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Work-DASH self-administered
questionnaires, normalized Constant score, and muscle strength measurement. On analyzing
the results at a 2-year follow-up, we considered the following independent variables:
baseline scores; age; gender; dominance; location, shape, and area of cuff tear; tendon
retraction; fatty degeneration; treatment of biceps tendon; and rotator cuff repair
technique (anchors or anchors and side to side). Univariate and multivariate statistical
analyses were performed to determine which variables were independently associated
with the outcome. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Of the patients, 8 (10%) were lost to follow-up. Comparison between groups did not
show significant differences for each variable considered. Overall, according to the
results, the mean DASH scores were 15.4 ± 15.6 points in group 1 and 12.7 ± 10.1 points
in group 2; the mean Work-DASH scores were 16.0 ± 22.0 points and 9.6 ± 13.3 points,
respectively; and the mean Constant scores were 100.5 ± 17.8 points and 104.9 ± 21.8
points, respectively. Muscle strength was 12.7 ± 5.7 lb in group 1 and 12.9 ± 7.0
lb in group 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that only age, gender,
and baseline strength significantly and independently influenced the outcome. Differences
between groups 1 and 2 were not significant.
Conclusions
At short-term follow-up, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the double-row technique
showed no significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair.
Level of Evidence
Level I, high-quality randomized controlled trial with no statistically significant
differences but narrow confidence intervals.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Arthroscopic versus mini-open rotator cuff repair: A cohort comparison study.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 328-332
- A comparison of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1090-1098
- The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 219-224
- Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus: Does the tendon really heal?.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1229-1240
- Rotator cuff tears: The effect of the reconstruction method on three-dimensional repair site area.Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 519-526
- Mini-open rotator cuff repair using a two-row fixation technique: Outcomes analysis in patients with small, moderate, and large rotator cuff tears.Arthroscopy. 2002; 18: 665-670
- Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: Re-establishing the footprint of the rotator cuff.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 1035-1072
- Biomechanical evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff stitches.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 1211-1216
- Arthroscopic single-row versus double-row suture anchor rotator cuff repair.Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33: 1861-1868
- Biomechanical comparison of a single-row versus double-row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 407-414
- The effect of double-row fixation on initial repair strength in rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical study.Arthroscopy. 2006; 22: 1168-1173
- Part I: Footprint contact characteristics for a transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: 461-468
- Part II: Biomechanical assessment for a footprint-restoring transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: 469-476
- Comparison between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair: A biomechanical study.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 75-80
- Functional and structural outcome after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: Single-row versus dual-row fixation.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1307-1316
- Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 953-960
- The outcome and structural integrity of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with use of the double-row suture anchor technique.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 1533-1541
- Outcome and structural integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using 2 rows of fixation: Minimum 2-year follow-up.Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 1899-1905
- Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with double-row fixation.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 1248-1257
- Clinical evidence shows no difference between single- and double-row repair for rotator cuff tears.Arthroscopy. 2007; 23: 670-673
- Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair?.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1247-1253
- Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: A randomized controlled trial.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1254-1260
- Comparison of the clinical outcomes of single- and double-row repairs in rotator cuff tears.Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36: 1310-1316
- Classification of rotator cuff lesions.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; : 81-86
- Fatty degeneration of the muscles of the rotator cuff: Assessment by computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999; 8: 599-605
- The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis.Arthroscopy. 2005; 21: 1296-1306
- Italian version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.J Hand Surg [Br]. 2003; 28: 179-186
- The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: Longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003; 4: 11-16
- Considerations on sample size and power calculations in randomized clinical trials.Arthroscopy. 2003; 19: 997-999
- A review of the Constant score: Modifications and guidelines for its use.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 355-361
- The relationship among strength and mobility measures and self-report outcome scores in persons after rotator cuff repair surgery: Impairment measures are not enough.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 95S-98S
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 03, 2008
Accepted:
September 18,
2008
Received:
April 18,
2008
Footnotes
The authors report no conflict of interest. Drs. Grasso and Milano contributed equally to the paper.
Identification
Copyright
© 2009 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
