Background: Restoring the anatomical footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomical configuration of the rotator cuff footprint. Hypothesis: There is no difference in clinical and imaging outcome between single-row and double-row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The authors recruited 60 patients. In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a single-row suture anchor technique (group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a double-row suture anchor technique (group 2). Results: Eight patients (4 in the single-row anchor repair group and 4 in the double-row anchor repair group) did not return at the final follow-up. At the 2-year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the University of California, Los Angeles score and range of motion values. At 2-year follow-up, postoperative magnetic resonance arthrography in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial-thickness defects in 10 patients, and full-thickness defects in 2 patients; In group 2, magnetic resonance arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial-thickness defects in 7 patients and full-thickness defects in 1 patient. Conclusion: single- and double-row techniques provide comparable clinical outcome at 2 years. A double-row technique produces a mechanically superior construct compared with the single-row method in restoring the anatomical footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance.

Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial

FRANCESCHI F;LONGO UG;MARTINA FM;BEOMONTE ZOBEL B;DENARO V
2007-01-01

Abstract

Background: Restoring the anatomical footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomical configuration of the rotator cuff footprint. Hypothesis: There is no difference in clinical and imaging outcome between single-row and double-row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The authors recruited 60 patients. In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a single-row suture anchor technique (group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a double-row suture anchor technique (group 2). Results: Eight patients (4 in the single-row anchor repair group and 4 in the double-row anchor repair group) did not return at the final follow-up. At the 2-year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the University of California, Los Angeles score and range of motion values. At 2-year follow-up, postoperative magnetic resonance arthrography in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial-thickness defects in 10 patients, and full-thickness defects in 2 patients; In group 2, magnetic resonance arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial-thickness defects in 7 patients and full-thickness defects in 1 patient. Conclusion: single- and double-row techniques provide comparable clinical outcome at 2 years. A double-row technique produces a mechanically superior construct compared with the single-row method in restoring the anatomical footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12610/6347
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 363
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 312
social impact