|
|
||||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,*



From the
Association Francilienne de Traumatologie du Sport, Paris, France, and the
Clinique Bachaumont, Service de Radiologie, Paris, France
* Address correspondence to Christophe Charousset, Association Francilienne de Traumatologie du Sport, 60, rue de Courcelles, 75008 Paris, France (e-mail: c.charousset{at}lafts.com).
Background: Increasing the rate of watertight tendon healing has been suggested as an important criterion for optimizing clinical results in rotator cuff arthroscopic repair.
Hypothesis: A double-row anchorage technique for rotator cuff repair will produce better clinical results and a better rate of tendon healing than a single-row technique.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
Methods: We compared 31 patients undergoing surgery with a double-row anchorage technique using Panalok anchors and Cuff Tack anchors and 35 patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing surgery with a single-row anchorage arthroscopic technique using Panalok anchors. We compared pre- and postoperative Constant score and tendon healing, as evaluated by computed tomographic arthrography 6 months after surgery, in these 2 groups.
Results: The Constant score increased significantly in both groups, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = .4). Rotator cuff healing was judged anatomic in 19 patients with double-row anchorage and in 14 patients with single-row anchorage; this difference between the groups was significant (P = .03).
Conclusion: In this first study comparing double- and single-row anchorage techniques, we found no significant difference in clinical results, but tendon healing rates were better with the double-row anchorage. Improvements in the double-row technique might lead to better clinical and tendon healing results.
Key Words: arthroscopy rotator cuff repair rotator cuff footprint double-row fixation tendon healing
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. B. Frank, N. S. ElAttrache, J. S. Dines, A. Blackburn, J. Crues, and J. E. Tibone Repair Site Integrity After Arthroscopic Transosseous-Equivalent Suture-Bridge Rotator Cuff Repair Am. J. Sports Med., August 1, 2008; 36(8): 1496 - 1503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. Lorbach, F. Bachelier, J. Vees, D. Kohn, and D. Pape Cyclic Loading of Rotator Cuff Reconstructions: Single-Row Repair With Modified Suture Configurations Versus Double-Row Repair Am. J. Sports Med., August 1, 2008; 36(8): 1504 - 1510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-Y. Park, S.-H. Lhee, J.-H. Choi, H.-K. Park, J.-W. Yu, and J.-B. Seo Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Single- and Double-row Repairs in Rotator Cuff Tears Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1310 - 1316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. T. Busfield, R. E. Glousman, M. H. McGarry, J. E. Tibone, and T. Q. Lee A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Technical Variations of Double-Row Rotator Cuff Fixation: The Importance of Medial Row Knots Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 2008; 36(5): 901 - 906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |