AJSM signin
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
First published on April 15, 2008
(American Journal of Sports Medicine 2008, doi:10.1177/0363546508315039)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (AJSM PreView[PDF])
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Park, J.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Seo, J.-B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Park, J.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Seo, J.-B.

Article

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Single- With Double-row Repair in Rotator Cuff Tears

Jin-Young Park, MD, PhD1, Sang-Hoon Lhee, MD1*, Jin-Hyung Choi, MD1, Hong-Keun Park, MD1, Je-Wook Yu, MD2, Joong-Bae Seo, PhD2

1 Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dankook University College of Medicine, Chungnam, Korea

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sanghoon.lhee{at}gmail.com.


   Abstract

Background: Although research has demonstrated the superiority of double-row rotator cuff repair over single-row methods from a biological and mechanical point of view, few studies have compared clinical outcome of the 2 methods, and no articles have been published describing the superiority of double-row methods in clinical aspects.

Hypothesis: Arthroscopic double-row repair of a rotator cuff tear has superior clinical outcome to single-row repair.

Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods: The study included 78 patients operated on for full-thickness rotator cuff tears between May 2002 and May 2004. A single-row fixation method was used in the first consecutive 40 patients, and a double-row fixation method was used in the next consecutive 38 patients. The mean age at surgery was 56 years. At 2 years after surgery, final evaluation was done with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scoring systems and the Shoulder Strength Index. The Shoulder Strength Index is a new evaluation method to estimate relative shoulder strength compared with the unaffected shoulder.

Results: At final follow-up, the average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were 91.6 in the single-row group and 93.0 in the double-row group. The Constant score was 76.7 in the single-row group and 80.0 in the double-row group. Functional outcome was improved in both groups after surgery, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. When the patients were further divided by size of tear, there was still no difference between the repair techniques in the patients with small to medium (<3 cm) tears. However, in patients with large to massive tears (>3 cm), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores and Shoulder Strength Index were all significantly better in the group that had double-row repair.

Conclusion: Small to medium rotator cuff tears should be repaired with the single-row method, and large to massive tears should be repaired with the double-row method.







HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2008 by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.