Functional Outcomes After Double-Row Versus Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Trial

Background:

The functional benefits of double-row (DR) versus single-row (SR) rotator cuff repair are not clearly established.

Purpose:

To examine the effect of DR versus SR rotator cuff repair on functional outcomes and strength recovery in patients with full-thickness tears.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

Forty-nine patients were randomized to DR or SR repairs; 36 patients (13 women, 23 men; mean age, 62 ± 7 years; 20 SR, 16 DR) were assessed at a mean 2.2 ± 1.6 years after surgery (range, 1-7 years; tear size: 17 medium, 13 large, 9 massive). The following data were recorded prior to surgery and at follow-up: Penn shoulder score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) results; range of motion (ROM) for shoulder flexion, external rotation (ER) at 0° and 90° of abduction, and internal rotation (IR) at 90° of abduction; and shoulder strength (Lafayette manual muscle tester) in empty- and full-can tests, abduction, and ER at 0° of abduction. Treatment (SR vs DR) × time (pre- vs postoperative) mixed-model analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of rotator cuff repair.

Results:

Rotator cuff repair markedly improved Penn, ASES, and SST scores (P < .001), with similar improvement between SR and DR repairs (treatment × time, P = .38-.10) and excellent scores at follow-up (DR vs SR: Penn, 91 ± 11 vs 92 ± 11 [P = .73]; ASES, 87 ± 12 vs 92 ± 12 [P = .21]; SST, 11.4 ± 1.0 vs 11.3 ± 1.0 [P = .76]). Patients with DR repairs lost ER ROM at 0° of abduction (preoperative to final follow-up, 7° ± 10° loss [P = .013]). ER ROM did not significantly change with SR repair (5° ± 14° gain, P = .16; treatment by time, P = .008). This effect was not apparent for ER ROM at 90° of abduction (treatment × time, P = .26). IR ROM improved from preoperative to final follow-up (P < .01; SR, 17° ± 27°; DR, 7° ± 21°; treatment × time, P = .23). Rotator cuff repair markedly improved strength in empty-can (54%), full-can (66%), abduction (47%), and ER (54%) strength (all P < .001), with no difference between SR and DR repairs (P = .23-.75). All clinical tests with the exception of the lift-off test were normalized at follow-up (P < .05).

Conclusion:

Outcomes were not different between SR or DR repair, with generally excellent outcomes for both groups. Rotator cuff repair and subsequent rehabilitation markedly improved shoulder strength.

The Effect of a High Pitch Volume on Musculoskeletal Adaptations in High School Baseball Pitchers

BACKGROUND

Shoulder range of motion and strength adaptations occur at an early age in baseball pitchers.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of pitch volume on in-season and year-to-year range of motion (ROM) and strength adaptations in high school baseball pitchers. The hypothesis was that a high pitch volume will not affect range of motion asymmetries but will impair supraspinatus strength.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Pre- and postseason ROM and strength measures were performed on pitchers from 3 high schools for 4 consecutive seasons, for a total of 95 player-seasons (mean ± SD participant age, 16 ± 1 years). Preseason measures were repeated the next year on players returning to the teams, for a total of 71 consecutive player-seasons. ROM tests included internal-external rotation and posterior shoulder flexibility. Strength tests (hand-held dynamometer) included internal-external rotation, supraspinatus, and scapular retraction. Pitchers were categorized by pitch count for the season (high, >400; moderate, 180-400; low, <180). ROM and strength changes in the dominant versus nondominant arm were assessed by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Dominant versus nondominant ROM differences did not change from pre- to postseason (P = .36-.99) or from one year to the next (P = .46-.86), with no effect of pitch volume (P = .23-.87). Supraspinatus strength decreased in the dominant arm during the season, with 13% loss in high-volume pitchers (P < .001) and insignificant losses in moderate- (6%) and low-volume pitchers (2%). Strength in other tests was unaffected by pitch volume. Consistent with physical development, strength increased bilaterally from one year to the next (supraspinatus, 12%; external rotation, 15%; internal rotation, 14%; scapular retraction, 23%; P < .001). Supraspinatus strength gain in the dominant arm was affected by prior pitch volume (P = .02): 24% in low-volume pitchers (P < .01), with no significant change in moderate-volume (0%; P = .99) or high-volume (5%; P = .99) pitchers.

CONCLUSION

Dominant versus nondominant ROM differences did not progress during the season, or from one year to the next, and were unaffected by pitch volume. A high pitch volume was associated with in-season supraspinatus weakness and diminished strength gains from one year to the next. In conclusion, a high pitch volume appeared to have a catabolic effect on supraspinatus strength.