ePosters > Abstract

2023 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster

A Prospective Comparative Study of Single Row vs. Double Row in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Kaushik Reddy Madugula, M.S Ortho, Hyderabad, Telangana INDIA
Ravi Teja Rudraraju, MD, Hyderabad, Telangana INDIA
Apollo Health City , Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA

FDA Status Not Applicable

Summary

At long-term follow-up, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with the double-row technique showed no significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair

ePosters will be available shortly before Congress

Abstract

Introduction

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become popular in the last few years because it avoids large skin incisions and deltoid detachment and dysfunction. Earlier arthroscopic single-row (SR) repair methods achieved only partial restoration of the original footprint of the tendons of the rotator cuff, while double-row (DR) repair methods presented many biomechanical advantages and higher rates of tendon-to-bone healing. However, DR repair failed to demonstrate better clinical results than SR repair in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques.

Materials And Methods

The study enrolled 60 patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear who were divided into 2 groups of 30 patients each according to repair technique. The patients were followed-up for at least 2 years. The ROM measurements were collected at the 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th weeks after the start of treatment. The results were evaluated by UCLA score. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed to determine which variables were independently associated with the outcome. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Comparison between groups did not show significant differences. At the final follow-up, the UCLA score was 28.02 ±1.07 in the single-row group and were 29.5 ±1.6 in the double-row group. Functional outcome was improved in both groups after surgery, but the difference between the 2 groups was not significant. Patients of both the groups had no pain on the 4th week onward and Chi-square (?2) test revealed no significant relationship between ROM at different time intervals and the patients in the two groups (P > 0.05). The results were rated Excellent in 45 patients (75%), good in 12 patients (20%), and Poor in three patients (5%). There were no significant differences in rates of healing between the groups when assessed by MRI studies (P>0.05).

Discussion

Despite the biomechanical studies and cadaver studies that proved the superiority of double-row fixation over single-row fixation, our clinical results show no difference in functional outcome between the two methods. It is evident that double-row repair is more technically demanding, expensive, and time-consuming than single-row repair, without providing a significant improvement in clinical results.

Conclusions