Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: single-row vs. double-row – clinical results after one to four years

Senna, Luís Filipe; Ramos, Max Rogério Freitas; Bergamaschi, Ricardo Folador

doi:10.1016/j.rboe.2018.05.010

Cited by 10 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nicholas et al [19] 2016 II 49 SR = DR -All size Transosseous equivalent SR: single row repair; DR, double row repair; MRA: Magnetic Resonance arthrography; PRP: platelet-rich plasma fibrin membrane. [20] 2012 108 1980-2012 -Roth et al [21] 2014 10(7 level I studies and 3 level 2 studies) 2007-2013 SR = DR Ying et al [22] 2015 11(7 level I studies and 4 level 2 studies) 2007-2012 SR < DR; in large tears Sobhy et al [23] [7][8][9] reported better clinical outcomes of DR compared to SR, whereas some [10][11][12][13] described no difference of clinical outcomes between SR and DR. The purpose of this article was to review the current evidence regarding outcomes of DR.…”

Section: Radiological Assessment Tear Size Dr Techniques Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Single or Double Row?

Titchener

D’sa

Gaden

et al. 2019

International Journal of Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Surgical techniques for rotator cuff tears have improved from single row repair (SR) to double row repair (DR) including transosseous equivalent repair as new surgical devices or suture anchors were developed. Many biomechanical evidence favors DR with respect to footprint contact area and pressure and compression for cuff tendons. Some surgeons reported better clinical outcomes of DR compared to SR, whereas some described no difference of clinical outcomes between SR and DR. The purpose of this article was to review the current evidence regarding outcomes of DR comparing to SR and clarify whether better clinical or radiological outcomes can be obtained by performing DR. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of clinical studies published for last 5 years which compared SR to DR. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify all publications in the English literature. The databases MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched. Also, we reviewed the latest systematic review and meta-analysis published between 2012 and 2018. RESULTS: Four clinical articles with evidence Levels I or II published in last 5 years were identified. Two of them documented superiority of DR over SR. Four systematic review and meta-analysis published between 2012 and 2018 were identified. Among them, two showed that DR provides better clinical outcomes and a lower retear rate compared with SR but its superiority is seen in the limited situation (only large tears or UCLA score). CONCLUSION: Although some reports with higher evidence Levels showed DR provides better clinical outcomes, it may be too early to conclude which repair technique is better because of lack of enough evidence.

show abstract

Section: Radiological Assessment Tear Size Dr Techniques Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Single or Double Row?

Titchener

D’sa

Gaden

et al. 2019

International Journal of Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rotator cuff (RC) rupture is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain and disability (1). Although most ruptures are treated conservatively, many methods (especially arthroscopic) for tears requiring surgical intervention have been described in the last two decades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of row number on clinical and life quality outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Günay¹,

Eken

2021

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Shoulder pain and disability are mostly seen following rotator cuff rupture. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair becomes a gold standard treatment for rotator cuff rupture when conservative treatment fails. Comparing functional results, retear rates and reoperation rates of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in terms of single-row versus double row techniques is our aim in this study. Material and Method: Overall, 174 arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery patients were specified into 2 groups. Group 1 consists of 81 patients underwent single-row repair and group 2 consists of 93 patients consisted of transosseos equivalent technique double row. We evaluated demographic data and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant Murley, Visual analogue scale and 36-item Short Form subscale scores. Results: Mean follow-up time was 14.08±4.77 months. ASES, CM and VAS following ARCR were similar between two groups. Some of SF-36 subscale score improvements after operation are significantly better in group 2; role limitations due to physical health (p=0.041), energy/fatigue (p=0.026), emotional well-being (p=0.017), pain (p=0.010), general health (p=0.037). Re-rupture rates were significantly different. In group 1 re-rupture rate was 13.6% and for group 2 it was 1.1% (p=0.001). Conclusion:Lower re-rupture rates, and improved quality of life outcomes at short-term follow-up can be obtained by arthroscopic double-row repair. We suggest that the double-row technique can be considered for patients who have medium to large rotator cuff tears for lower re-rupture rates and some quality of life outcomes.

show abstract

“…Numerous techniques have been published and used to treat and repair these tears; these include single- or double-row fixations, sometimes using auto- or allograft for irreparable tears, showing very promising results. 2 Although no significant clinical differences between single- and double-row techniques were shown in most recent studies, 3 , 4 controversy still exists on the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. Thorsness and Romeo 2 found that superior capsular reconstruction are the best solution for irreparable cuff tears.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Massive Rotator Cuff Repair: Banana SutureLasso Double-Row Fixation

Kamel

Merlet

Dujardin

et al. 2021

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Massive rotator cuff tears have always been a worrisome situation to every orthopaedic surgeon. Patients’ functional demands are increasing with time, and this is why we aim to offer them the best options to preserve their quality of life. We found that using the Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) has made this type of surgery much easier. We think that with the Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) we have more access to the medial part of the rotator cuff, and that we can grab both the deep and superficial layers of the tendons while diminishing the risk of laceration. We combined an X-suture with a double-row fixation using a Corkscrew (Arthrex) on the humeral tuberosity and a SwiveLock (Arthrex) screw on lateral side of the humerus. We used only 3 portals with an extra parking portal. Another advantage is that we can adjust the sutures so they would be perpendicular to both ends of the tear. Our technique is simple, safe, and reproducible.

show abstract

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: single-row vs. double-row – clinical results after one to four years

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Single or Double Row?

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: Single or Double Row?

The effect of row number on clinical and life quality outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Massive Rotator Cuff Repair: Banana SutureLasso Double-Row Fixation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About