The authors identified 9 randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials that reported the outcome of single-row repair and double-row repair techniques. 5 of these were randomized prospective studies. Importantly, nonrandomized comparative clinical studies (level III evidence), reviews, case series, expert opinions, and editorial pieces (level IV and V studies) were excluded. Studies that reported only nonclinical outcome measures or were in vitro and animal studies were also excluded.
They found a statistically significant difference in favor of double-row repair for the overall ASES score, re-tear rate, and internal rotation range of motion. In shoulders with a tear > 30 mm in the anteroposterior dimension, double-row techniques produced better outcomes than single-row techniques. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the overall Constant score, UCLA score, external rotation and forward elevation range of motion, or muscle strength.
Unfortunately, only 5 studies reported retear rates. The rate of failure to achieve anatomic integrity at followup was high: 30 of 126 (23.8%) of the double-row repairs had retears while 53 of 132 (40.2%) of the single-row repairs had retears. The authors did not report the relationship of retear to clinical outcome.
===
To see the topics covered in this Blog, click here
Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.
You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and run, reverse total shoulder, CTA arthroplasty, rotator cuff surgery, 'ream and run essentials' and consultation for shoulder arthritis.
You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and run, reverse total shoulder, CTA arthroplasty, rotator cuff surgery, 'ream and run essentials' and consultation for shoulder arthritis.
