J Shoulder Elbow Surg (2014) 23, 182-188 www.elsevier.com/locate/ymse Meta-analysis comparing single-row and double-row repair techniques in the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears Caiqi Xu, MD, Jinzhong Zhao, MD*, Dingfeng Li, MD Department of Arthroscopy Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China Background: Rotator cuff tears are among the most common shoulder injuries and can be a source of persistent pain, disability, and decreased range of motion and strength. Our hypothesis was to conduct a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare the clinical results of a double-row technique with the results of a single-row technique for different tear sizes. Methods: A search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid databases. All randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials that reported the outcome of single-row repair and double-row repair techniques were included in our meta-analysis. Two subgroups were set according to the tear size. The outcomes were the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, UCLA score, re-tear rate, range of motion, and muscle strength. Results: We included 9 studies in this meta-analysis, 5 of which were randomized prospective studies. There was 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 subgroup 2 (tear size > 30 mm in the anteroposterior dimension), double-row techniques produced better outcomes than single-row techniques. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall Constant score, UCLA score, external rotation and forward elevation range of motion, or muscle strength. Conclusion: Double-row rotator cuff repair techniques have a significantly lower re-tear rate, higher ASES score, and greater range of motion of internal rotation compared with single-row repair techniques. Especially in those rotator cuff tears with a size >30 mm, the double-row technique is recommended for repair. Level of evidence: Level II, Meta-Analysis, Treatment Study. Crown Copyright Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Neonatal Nurses Association. All rights reserved. Keywords: Double-row repair; single-row repair; rotator cuff tear; clinical outcomes; re-tear rate Rotator cuff tears are among the most common shoulder injuries and can be a source of persistent pain, disability, and decreased range of motion (ROM) and strength.23 IRB: Not applicable. *Reprint requests: Jinzhong Zhao, MD, Department of Arthroscopy Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai 200233, China. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Zhao). Improvements in surgical technique and instrumentation have made arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery common.7 Currently, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is becoming increasingly popular, and significant research has been performed to evaluate the different techniques and outcomes.24 The double-row technique of rotator cuff repair can increase the tendon-bone contact area and creates a more anatomic footprint.16,19 Although the single-row technique of repairing the torn cuff tendons raises 1058-2746/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Neonatal Nurses Association. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.005 Meta-analysis comparing single-row and double-row repair 183 concerns about a lack of anatomic healing,11 it has been the standard technique, producing acceptable clinical results.27 Our purpose was to conduct a meta-analysis of recently published studies to compare the clinical results of a doublerow technique with the results of a single-row technique in patients with rotator cuff tears of different sizes to help clinicians make medical decisions in different situations. forward elevation (sagittal plane), and internal and external rotation (90 of abduction). In the studies,4,5,10,12,15,17,20 one medical clinician who was unaware of surgery type or clinical results conducted the ROM and muscle strength measurement. Methods Search strategy A computer literature search was conducted with the search terms ‘‘single-row,’’ ‘‘double-row,’’ and ‘‘rotator cuff.’’ The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1950 to July 2012), EMBASE (1980 to July 2012), and Ovid (1982 to July 2012). The references of the retrieved articles were also screened for any potential studies. When necessary, the authors of the studies were contacted for further information. Eligibility criteria Type of studies All randomized controlled clinical trials (level I and II studies) that reported on the outcome of single-row versus double-row techniques in the treatment of rotator cuff tear were included. Nonrandomized comparative clinical studies (level III evidence) were excluded. Reviews, case series, expert opinions, and editorial pieces (level IV and V studies) were also excluded. Studies that reported only nonclinical outcome measures or were in vitro and animal studies were also excluded. Type of subjects Studies enrolling human subjects of all ages with rotator cuff tears that were unilaterally or bilaterally undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were eligible for inclusion. We excluded trials or studies of patients with congenital deformities, patients with other systemic diseases (like cardiovascular disease and neurologic disorders), and animals or cadavers. Type of interventions The experimental intervention was a double-row repair technique. All repair techniques were included. The control intervention was a single-row repair technique. Studies comparing the double-row technique with another intervention but not with the single-row technique were excluded. Studies comparing the double-row technique with another intervention and with the single-row technique were included if the groups could be analyzed separately. Types of outcome measures The outcomes included the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) score,8 ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons) score,25 Constant score,6 ROM of the shoulder (including internal and external rotation, flexion and abduction, and forward elevation), muscle strength, and re-tear rate. A standard universal goniometer was used for measurement of ROM. In the study conducted by Franceschi et al,10 an examining couch was used to obtain the measurement of ROM at 90 of abduction in the scapular plane (approximately 15 anterior to the coronal plane), Subgroups The included subjects were divided into 2 groups according to the tear size described in the original articles. The small and mediumsize tear (subgroup 1) was defined as a tear <30 mm evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the anteroposterior dimension preoperatively; the large or massive-size tear (subgroup 2) was defined as a tear >30 mm. In each subgroup, all clinical outcomes were integrated and compared. Study selection From the titles and abstracts, two independent reviewers selected relevant studies for full review. For inclusion in the analysis, two reviewers (C.X. and D.L.) analyzed the full articles using the previously mentioned criteria independently. The reviewers were not blinded to the author of the studies or the journal in which the studies were published. Data collection and statistical methods The data were extracted by two authors (C.X. and D.L.) independently, and the data were analyzed for a meta-analysis. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed by the use of RevMan software (Review Manager Version 5.1.6, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011). Continuous data (UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores and ROM) were reported as standardized mean differences. Dichotomous data (re-tear rate) were reported as risk ratios by the use of a random or fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by use of I2. An I2 of less than 60% was the cutoff for homogeneity of the data, justifying pooling. A fixed effects model was applied when the included studies were assessed to be homogeneous; a randomized effect model was applied when they were heterogeneous. Results Study selection The electronic search produced the following hits: 103 from MEDLINE, 114 from EMBASE, and 133 from Ovid. After the removal of duplicates and exclusion by a first screening based on the titles and eligibility criteria, 150 records remained. Of these, 104 were excluded on the basis of their abstracts and exclusion criteria, and 37 were excluded on the basis of the eligibility criteria. Nine studies1,3-5,10,12,15,17,20 were included in the meta-analysis. Study characteristics A total of 651 subjects were included in 9 studies (Table I); 5 studies were randomized prospective trials (evidence 184 Table I C. Xu et al. Characteristics of included studies Aydin1 (2010) Burks3 (2009) Carbonel4 (2012) Charousset5 (2007) Franceschi10 (2007) Grasso12 (2009) Koh15 (2011) Ma17 (2012) Park20 (2008) Age (years) Sex (M/F) No. of patients No. of suture anchors Follow-up period (months) Evidence level SR, 59 (40-69) DR, 57 (36-67) SR, 56 (43-74) DR, 57 (41-81) SR, 55.79 6.3 DR, 55.21 5.0 SR, 58 (32-74) DR, 60 (37-62) SR, 63.5 (43-76) DR, 59.6 (45-80) SR, 58.3 10.3 DR, 55.2 6.5 SR, 61.6 8.8 DR, 61.1 9.1 SR, 60.8 (47-80) DR, 61.6 (40-72) SR, 57 (39-78) DR, 54.4 (28-76) Not reported SR, 34 DR, 34 SR, 20 DR, 20 SR, 80 DR, 80 SR, 35 DR, 31 SR, 26 DR, 26 SR, 37 DR, 35 SR, 31 DR, 31 SR, 27 DR, 26 SR, 40 DR, 38 SR, 1-3 DR, 1-3 SR, 2.25 DR, 3.2 SR, 1.83 (1-3) DR, 2.99 (2-4) SR, 1-4 DR, 2-4 SR, 1.9 (1-2) DR, 2.3 (2-4) SR, 1-2 DR, 2-5 Not reported 12 II 12 I 24 I 28.7 (24-40) II 22.5 (18-25) I 24.8 (22.4-26.2) I SR, 31.0 6.2 DR, 32.8 6.4 SR, 33.3 (24-42) DR, 33.5 (24-42) 25.1 (22-30) I Not reported SR, 35/45 DR, 33/47 SR, 15/20 DR, 16/15 SR, 12/14 DR, 16/10 SR, 16/21 DR, 18/17 SR, 9/22 DR, 11/20 SR, 15/12 DR, 14/12 SR, 20/20 DR, 22/16 SR, 2.37 (2-4) DR, 3.38 (3-5) SR, 1-3 DR, 2-6 II II SR, single row; DR, double row. Table II Reporting of tear size and outcomes per included study Tear size Aydin1 (2010) Burks3 (2009) Carbonel4 (2012) Charousset5 (2007) Franceschi10 (2007) Grasso12 (2009) Koh15 (2011) Ma17 (2012) Park20 (2008) UCLA score Constant score ASES score Retear rate Range of motion and muscle strength Internal rotation External rotation O O (Nm) O (degree) O (Nm) O (degree) O (degree) O (degree) Elevation Flexion Abduction O (degree) O (degree) O NR NR O O O 10-30 mm 30-50 mm NR O O O >30 mm O O O O O (degree) O NR 20-40 mm O <30 >30 <30 >30 O mm mm mm mm O O O (lb) O O O O O O (degree) O (SSI) O (degree) O (kg) O (SSI) O (degree) O (kg) O (SSI) NR, not reported; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; SSI, Shoulder Strength Index; N.m, newtonmetres. level I), and the other 4 were evidence level II studies. The mean age of the subjects in the included studies was between 55.2 and 63.5 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 12 to 42 months. The reported outcomes varied among the included studies (Table II). Shoulder outcome scores Constant score The Constant scores at the final follow-up were reported in 7 studies,1,3-5,12,15,20 2 of which divided all subjects into 2 Meta-analysis comparing single-row and double-row repair 185 Figure 1 Forest plots of overall functional outcomes and re-tear rate. (A) Mean difference and 95% CIs of Constant score. (B) Mean difference and 95% CIs of UCLA score. (C) Mean difference and 95% CIs of ASES score. (D) Risk ratio and 95% CIs of re-tear rate. IV, inverse variance statistical method; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Figure 2 Forest plots of functional outcomes in two subgroups. (A) Mean difference and 95% CIs of Constant score in subgroup 1. (B) Mean difference and 95% CIs of Constant score in subgroup 2. (C) Mean difference and 95% CIs of UCLA score in subgroup 1. (D) Mean difference and 95% CIs of UCLA score in subgroup 2. (E) Mean difference and 95% CIs of ASES score in subgroup 1. (F) Mean difference and 95% CIs of ASES score in subgroup 2. IV, inverse variance statistical method. subgroups according to tear size.4,20 This meta-analysis did not show statistically significant differences between the single-row technique and the double-row technique, with a mean difference of 0.31 (95% CI, 2.71 to 2.09) (Fig. 1, A). The same outcomes were shown in the integration of the subgroups (subgroup 1: mean difference, 0.23; 95% CI, 1.78 to 1.31; subgroup 2: mean difference, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.95 to 6.76) (Fig. 2, A, B). UCLA score The UCLA score was documented in 5 studies,3,4,10,15,17 and 3 of them4,10,17 had subgroups. Although the double-row 186 C. Xu et al. Figure 3 Forest plots of overall ROM and muscle strength. (A) Mean difference and 95% CIs of internal rotation ROM. (B) Mean difference and 95% CIs of external rotation ROM. (C) Mean difference and 95% CIs of forward elevation ROM. (D) Mean difference and 95% CIs of abduction muscle strength. (E) Mean difference and 95% CIs of internal rotation muscle strength. (F) Mean difference and 95% CIs of external rotation muscle strength. IV, inverse variance statistical method. group had a higher score than that of the single-row group, no statistically significant difference was identified (mean difference, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.50) (Fig. 1, B). The same outcome was shown in subgroup 1 (tear size < 30 mm), with mean difference of 0.54 (95% CI, 2.98 to 1.90) (Fig. 2, C). However, in subgroup 2 (tear size > 30 mm), this study favored double-row techniques, which had a statistically significant difference compared with single-row techniques (mean difference, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.44 to 2.51) (Fig. 2, D). ASES score Five studies3,4,15,17,20 compared the ASES score at the final follow-up. This meta-analysis showed that the double-row repair group had a statistically significant functional elevation compared with the single-row repair group, with a mean difference of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.39 to 2.05) (Fig. 1, C). In the subgroups comparison, the same result was found in subgroup 2 (tear size > 30 mm),4,17,20 with a mean difference of 2.08 (95% CI, 0.84 to 3.32) (Fig. 2, F); nevertheless, in subgroup 1 (tear size < 30 mm), the 2 repair techniques had no statistically significant difference (mean difference, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.94 to 3.11) (Fig. 2, E). MRI (anteroposterior tear dimension) was used to evaluate the tear after operations. Several radiographic manifestations indicated that the re-tear happened after operation, including fat saturation, tendon torn away from reattachment site, and incomplete coverage of footprint. The pooled results showed an incidence of 30 of 126 (23.8%) in the double-row repair group and 53 of 132 (40.2%) in the single-row repair group (risk ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86), which was a statistically significant difference (Fig. 1, D). Range of motion Three studies4,10,15 described the range of internal rotation, external rotation, and forward elevation. Our analysis showed a statistically significant difference in internal rotation with double-row repair (mean difference, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.29), but no statistically significant differences in external rotation (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.83) or forward elevation (mean difference, 0.25; 95% CI, 13.08 to 13.58) were detected (Fig. 3, A-C). Muscle strength Re-tear rate 3,5,10,15,17 Five studies reported the re-tear rate of the rotator cuff postoperatively. Coronal T1-weighted or T2-weighted Four studies3,12,17,20 documented the muscle strength of abduction, internal rotation, and external rotation preoperatively and postoperatively with different measurement Meta-analysis comparing single-row and double-row repair 187 methods. Therefore, we used the standardized mean differences to compare these scales by measuring the same outcome. No statistically significant differences were shown in the abduction strength (mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.54), internal rotation strength (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.32), or external rotation strength (mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.11) between the groups (Fig. 3, D-F). have a significantly lower re-tear rate compared with single-row repair techniques, which may be mainly due to a higher and tighter contact of the tendon-bone interface and lower gap formation. Rotator cuff repair aims to provide tendon fixation secure enough to hold the repaired tendons in place until biologic healing is established. Several factors may be implicated in failure of rotator cuff repairs, including suture or knot failure, inadequate tendon-to-bone fixation, and lack of tendon-to-bone healing. In addition, follow-up time is an important aspect for evaluation of these results, but it is a fact about which there is no clear consensus. Double-row repair showed a significantly greater internal rotation ROM, but no significant difference was detected for forward flexion or external rotation. However, a small mean difference in external rotation may not indicate any clinically significant difference. Different methods of muscle strength measurement were documented in each of 4 studies. Burks et al3 described muscle strength with the Lafayette manual muscle test system (model 01163; Lafayette Instrument, Lafayette, IN, USA). Grasso et al12 used a digital dynamometer (in pounds). Park et al20 used the Shoulder Strength Index to compare muscle strength. Ma et al17 favored a myometer (in kilograms; Mecmesin, Nottingham, UK). No significant differences were detected in the abduction, internal rotation, or external rotation muscle strength between the repair techniques. This meta-analysis has some limitations. Only 9 studies were analyzed, and low numbers of patients were selected for inclusion. There were differences in the study designs, surgical techniques, outcome measurement methods, and follow-up times to outcome evaluation. Although this metaanalysis showed a difference between single-row and double-row repair in patient-reported outcomes, we were unable to detect differences for radiologic findings (e.g., MRI follow-up postoperatively). Lack of common objective outcome measurements and different follow-up periods (from 12 months to 24 months) were also a limitation to this meta-analysis. Several muscle strength measurement techniques were available and reviewed by the authors, which was a limitation to the present analysis. In the future, we recommend more sufficiently powered randomized studies comparing single-row and double-row repair with standardized measurement techniques, follow-up periods, and repair procedures focused on clinical findings. Discussion The goals of rotator cuff repair are to achieve an initial fixation strength, to minimize the gap formation, to maintain the mechanical stability, and to optimize the biologic tendonbone healing.24 Many surgical techniques have been developed to achieve these goals. Among them, transosseous repairs are proven to have the highest load resistance and the lowest gap formation.13 Double-row rotator cuff repairs, using a ‘‘transosseous-equivalent technique,’’ have been designed to achieve an initial fixation strength that is comparable to that of open or mini-open transosseous repair. Several biomechanical studies comparing single-row and double-row repair show an increased load to failure, improved contact at the tendon-bone interface, and decreased gap formation2,9,14,16,18,21,22,26 with double repairs. Although the number of included studies was small, these 9 studies were assessed as having a moderate to high level of evidence. All 5 randomized controlled trials3,4,10,12,15 had an adequate allocation concealment technique. A variety of tear shapes, tear sizes, and gradings of the tear size were noted in some studies. It is difficult to avoid performance bias because of the other pathologic processes seen in the shoulder. All studies followed up the patients for at least a 12-month period. Seven studies1,3-5,12,15,20 preferred the Constant score to assess shoulder function. This meta-analysis shows no significant clinical outcome difference for the repair techniques, even within the subgroups and using the UCLA score,3,4,10,15,17 which is similar to the results of many previous studies. However, with use of the ASES score,3,4,15,17,20 the double-row techniques show advantages over the single-row techniques. Moreover, in subgroup 2 (tear size > 30 mm), double-row repairs have a statistically significant improved functional outcome in their UCLA and ASES scores. Although the Constant score showed no significant difference between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair, the functional score can still be widely used in clinical assessment after shoulder surgery. There are 5 studies3,5,10,15,17 describing the postoperative tendon repair integrity. One study, by Charousset et al,5 used computed tomographic arthrography in combination with MRI examination to determine the tendon integrity, but the others used MRI evaluation. A re-tear is defined as a partial-thickness or full-thickness tear postoperatively. In this analysis, double-row repair techniques Conclusion Despite the fact that double-row rotator cuff repair techniques have a significantly lower re-tear rate, higher ASES score, and greater ROM of internal rotation, there is no difference in the improvement in the Constant score, UCLA score, ROM of forward elevation and 188 external rotation, or muscle strength. Larger tears (>30 mm) show statistically significant improved functional outcomes with double-row repairs. Acknowledgment To Dr. Ignacio Carbonel, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain, for his extraordinary work and generosity of providing original data to us for this metaanalysis. C. Xu et al. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Disclaimer The authors, their immediate families, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article. 16. 17. 18. References 19. 1. Aydin N, Kocaoglu B, Guven O. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in small- to medium-sized tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010;19:722-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.11.053 2. Burkhart SS, Danaceau SM, Pearce CE Jr. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: analysis of results by tear size and by repair techniquedmargin convergence versus direct tendon-to-bone repair. Arthroscopy 2001; 17:905-12. 3. Burks RT, Crim J, Brown N, Fink B, Greis PE. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing arthroscopic single- and double-row rotator cuff repair: magnetic resonance imaging and early clinical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:674-82. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0363546508328115 4. Carbonel I, Martinez AA, Calvo A, Ripalda J, Herrera A. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study. Int Orthop 2012;36: 1877-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1559-9 5. Charousset C, Grimberg J, Duranthon LD, Bellaiche L, Petrover D. Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of double-row and single-row anchorage techniques with computed tomographic arthrography tendon healing assessment. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1247-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546507301661 6. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;(214):160-4. 7. Dines JS, Bedi A, ElAttrache NS, Dines DM. Single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: techniques and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:83-93. 8. Ellman H, Hanker G, Bayer M. Repair of the rotator cuff. End-result study of factors influencing reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:1136-44. 9. Essman JA, Bell RH, Askew M. Full-thickness rotator-cuff tear. An analysis of results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;(265):170-7. 10. Franceschi F, Ruzzini L, Longo UG, Martina FM, Zobel BB, Maffulli N, et al. Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1254-60. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/0363546507302218 Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86: 219-24. Grasso A, Milano G, Salvatore M, Falcone G, Deriu L, Fabbriciani C. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 2009;25:4-12. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.09.018 Hata Y, Saitoh S, Murakami N, Seki H, Nakatsuchi Y, Takaoka K. A less invasive surgery for rotator cuff tear: mini-open repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:11-6. Hsu HC, Boardman ND 3rd, Luo ZP, An KN. Tendon-defect and muscle-unloaded models for relating a rotator cuff tear to glenohumeral stability. J Orthop Res 2000;18:952-8. Koh KH, Kang KC, Lim TK, Shon MS, Yoo JC. Prospective randomized clinical trial of single- versus double-row suture anchor repair in 2- to 4-cm rotator cuff tears: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results. Arthroscopy 2011;27:453-62. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.arthro.2010.11.059 Lo IK, Burkhart SS. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: reestablishing the footprint of the rotator cuff. Arthroscopy 2003;19: 1035-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.036 Ma HL, Chiang ER, Wu HT, Hung SC, Wang ST, Liu CL, Chen TH. Clinical outcome and imaging of arthroscopic single-row and doublerow rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized trial. Arthroscopy 2012;28:16-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.003 Meier SW, Meier JD. The effect of double-row fixation on initial repair strength in rotator cuff repair: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 2006;22:1168-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.07.004 Meier SW, Meier JD. Rotator cuff repair: the effect of double-row fixation on three-dimensional repair site. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:691-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.03.004 Park JY, Lhee SH, Choi JH, Park HK, Yu JW, Seo JB. Comparison of the clinical outcomes of single- and double-row repairs in rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:1310-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0363546508315039 Park MC, ElAttrache NS, Tibone JE, Ahmad CS, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. 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;16:461-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse. 2006.09.010 Park MC, Tibone JE, ElAttrache NS, Ahmad CS, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Part II: biomechanical assessment for a footprint-restoring transosseousequivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:469-76. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.011 Pauly S, Gerhardt C, Chen J, Scheibel M. Single versus double-row repair of the rotator cuff: does double-row repair with improved anatomical and biomechanical characteristics lead to better clinical outcome? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010;18:1718-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1245-7 Prasathaporn N, Kuptniratsaikul S, Kongrukgreatiyos K. Single-row repair versus double-row repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 2011;27:978-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.01.014 Richards RR, An KH, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994;3:347-52. Tashjian RZ, Hollins AM, Kim HM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Steger-May K, et al. Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:2435-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546510382835 Wall LB, Keener JD, Brophy RH. Clinical outcomes of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff repairs. Arthroscopy 2009;25:1312-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2009.08.009
© Copyright 2024