Comparison of Arthroscopic Single-row and Double-row Repair for Rotator Cuff Injuries With Different Tear Sizes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

There is no clinical gold standard for the indications for single-row (SR) versus double-row (DR) repair according to small, large, or massive rotator cuff tear size.

Purpose

To conduct a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes and retear rates after arthroscopic SR and DR repair for rotator cuff injuries with different tear sizes.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

On the basis of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and China BioMedical Literature database were searched for relevant studies published before November 1, 2021, using the following search terms: "Rotator Cuff Injuries," "Rotator Cuff Tears," "Arthroscopy," "Arthroscopic Surgery," "single-row," and "double-row"; a total of 489 articles were retrieved. Quality evaluation was conducted for all the studies that met the inclusion criteria. This study evaluated the Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, and range of motion (ROM) as well as retear rate. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was adopted to calculate the results and assess risk.

Results

A total of 10 clinical studies were included, with 404 cases of DR and 387 cases of SR. Regarding overall results, DR had better forward elevation ROM (mean difference [MD] = -4.03° [95% CI, -6.00° to -2.06°]; P < .0001; I 2 = 46%) and a lower retear rate (MD = 2.39 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.08]; P = .001; I 2 = 0%) compared with SR repair. With regard to small tears (<3 cm), there was no noticeable difference on any of the 3 outcome scores between SR and DR. For large rotator cuff tears (≥3 cm), DR repair showed significantly better ASES scores (MD = -3.09 [95% CI, -6.19 to 0.02]; P = .05; I 2 = 73%) and UCLA scores (MD = -1.47 [95% CI, -2.21 to -0.72]; P = .0001; I 2 = 31%) compared with SR repair.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis revealed that DR had better UCLA scores, ASES scores, and ROM in forward elevation and lower retear rates. In rotator cuff tears <3 cm, there were no statistical differences in clinical outcome between SR and DR.

A Biomechanical, Cadaveric Evaluation of Single- Versus Double-Row Repair Techniques on Stability of Bony Bankart Lesions

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing stability between single- and double-row arthroscopic bony Bankart repair techniques focused only on the measurements of tensile forces on the bony fragment without re-creating a more physiologic testing environment.

PURPOSE

To compare dynamic stability and displacement between single- and double-row arthroscopic repair techniques for acute bony Bankart lesions in a concavity-compression cadaveric model simulating physiologic conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Testing was performed on 13 matched pairs of cadaveric glenoids with simulated bony Bankart fractures with a defect width of 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter. Half of the fractures were repaired with a double-row technique, and the contralateral glenoids were repaired with a single-row technique. To determine dynamic biomechanical stability and ultimate step-off of the repairs, a 150-N load and 2000 cycles of internal-external rotation at 1 Hz were applied to specimens to simulate early rehabilitation. Toggle was quantified throughout cycling with a coordinate measuring machine. Three-dimensional spatial measurements were calculated. After cyclic loading, the fracture displacement was measured.

RESULTS

The bony Bankart fragment-glenoid initial step-off was found to be significantly greater (P < .001) for the single-row technique (mean, 896 µm; SD, 282 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 436 µm; SD, 313 µm). The motion toggle was found to be significantly greater (P = .017) for the single-row technique (mean, 994 µm; SD, 711 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 408 µm; SD, 384 µm). The ultimate interface displacement was found to be significantly greater (P = .029) for the single-row technique (mean, 1265 µm; SD, 606 µm) compared with the double-row technique (mean, 795 µm; SD, 398 µm).

CONCLUSION

Using a concavity-compression glenohumeral cadaveric model, we found that the double-row arthroscopic fixation technique for bony Bankart repair resulted in superior stability and decreased displacement during simulated rehabilitation when compared with the single-row repair technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The findings from this study may help guide surgical decision-making by demonstrating superior biomechanical properties (improved initial step-off, motion toggle, and interface displacement) of the double-row bony Bankart repair technique when compared with single-row fixation. The double-row repair construct demonstrated increased stability of the bony Bankart fragment, which may improve bony Bankart healing.

Comparison of arthroscopic single-row and double-row repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: A protocol of cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) techniques are 2 kinds of widely used approaches for the arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff. This retrospective clinical trial was performed to address the question of whether a DR rotator cuff anchor repair gives results superior to a SR anchor repair in clinical outcome scores and complication rates.

METHODS

This study was performed and reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology checklist. We retrospectively reviewed our database, which was collected prospectively. From 2014 to 2017, 264 patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by an experienced single shoulder surgeon with the SR and DR techniques. This study was approved by the institutional review board in our hospital and was registered in the Research Registry. Outcome measures included Constant-Murley score, muscle strength, patient satisfaction, passive range of motion, and retear rates.

RESULTS

The hypothesis was that the DR technique would achieve better functional scores and fewer complications as compared to the SR technique in treatment of rotator cuff tears.

Biomechanical Comparison of Single- Versus Double-Row Capsulolabral Repair for Shoulder Instability: A Review

Background:

The glenohumeral joint is the most commonly dislocated joint in the body. Failure rates of capsulolabral repair have been reported to be approximately 8%. Recent focus has been on restoration of the capsulolabral complex by a double-row capsulolabral repair technique in an effort to decrease redislocation rates after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair.

Purpose:

To present a review of the biomechanical literature comparing single- versus double-row capsulolabral repairs and discuss the previous case series of double-row fixation.

Study Design:

Narrative review.

Methods:

A simple review of the literature was performed by PubMed search. Only biomechanical studies comparing single- versus double-row capsulolabral repair were included for review. Only those case series and descriptive techniques with clinical results for double-row repair were included in the discussion.

Results:

Biomechanical comparisons evaluating the native footprint of the labrum demonstrated significantly superior restoration of the footprint through double-row capsulolabral repair compared with single-row repair. Biomechanical comparisons of contact pressure at the repair interface, fracture displacement in bony Bankart lesion, load to failure, and decreased external rotation (suggestive of increased load to failure) were also significantly in favor of double- versus single-row repair. Recent descriptive techniques and case series of double-row fixation have demonstrated good clinical outcomes; however, no comparative clinical studies between single- and double-row repair have assessed functional outcomes.

Conclusion:

The superiority of double-row capsulolabral repair versus single-row repair remains uncertain because comparative studies assessing clinical outcomes have yet to be performed.

Does transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair biomechanically provide a "self-reinforcement" effect compared with single-row repair?

BACKGROUND

Transosseous-equivalent (TOE) rotator cuff repair has been theorized to be "self-reinforcing" against potentially destructive and increasing tendon loads. The goal of this study was to biomechanically verify and characterize the effect of increasing tendon load on frictional resistance over a repaired footprint for single-row (SR) and TOE repair techniques.

METHODS

In 10 fresh frozen human shoulders, TOE and SR supraspinatus tendon repairs were performed in each specimen. For all repairs, a pressure sensor was secured at the tendon-footprint interface. The supraspinatus tendon was loaded with 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 N at 0° and 30° abduction. Paired t tests and multivariate regression analyses were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

The SR repair had significant increases in footprint contact force, area, and pressure between each and all tendon-loading conditions (P < .05). The TOE repair similarly demonstrated increases in footprint contact force with increasing tendon load (P < .05). Comparing between repairs, TOE repair had more footprint contact force, area, pressure, and peak pressure at each load for both abduction angles (P < .05). With increasing load, the TOE repair had a significantly higher progression (slope) of footprint force and pressure compared with the SR repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reinforcing capacity in rotator cuff repair has been biomechanically characterized and verified. The TOE repair, with tendon-bridging sutures fixed medially and spanning the footprint, provides disproportionately more progressive footprint frictional resistance with increasing tendon loads compared with the SR repair secured over isolated fixation points. This self-reinforcing effect could help sustain structural integrity and potentially improve healing biology.

An in-vitro study of rotator cuff tear and repair kinematics using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation

Purpose:

Double-row suture anchor fixation of the rotator cuff was developed to reduce repair failure rates. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of simulated rotator cuff tears and subsequent repairs using single- and double-row suture anchor fixation on three-dimensional shoulder kinematics. It was hypothesized that both single- and double-row repairs would be effective in restoring active intact kinematics of the shoulder.

Materials and Methods:

Sixteen fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulder specimens (eight matched pairs) were tested using a custom loading apparatus designed to simulate unconstrained motion of the shoulder. In each specimen, the rotator cuff was sectioned to create a medium-sized (2 cm) tear. Within each pair, one specimen was randomized to a single-row suture anchor repair, while the contralateral side underwent a double-row suture anchor repair. Joint kinematics were recorded for intact, torn, and repaired scenarios using an electromagnetic tracking device.

Results:

Active kinematics confirmed that a medium-sized rotator cuff tear affected glenohumeral kinematics when compared to the intact state. Single- and double-row suture anchor repairs restored the kinematics of the intact specimen.

Conclusions:

This study illustrates the effects of medium-sized rotator cuff tears and their repairs on active glenohumeral kinematics. No significant difference (P ≥ 0.10) was found between the kinematics of single- and double-row techniques in medium-sized rotator cuff repairs.

Clinical Relevance:

Determining the relative effects of single- and double-row suture anchor repairs of the rotator cuff will allow physicians to be better equipped to treat patients with rotator cuff disease.

Initial load-to-failure and failure analysis in single- and double-row repair techniques for rotator cuff repair

AIM

This experimental study aimed to compare the load-to-failure rate and stiffness of single- versus double-row suture techniques for repairing rotator cuff lesions using two different suture materials. Additionally, the mode of failure of each repair was evaluated.

METHOD

In 32 sheep shoulders, a standardized tear of the infraspinatus tendon was created. Then, n = 8 specimen were randomized to four repair methods: (1) Double-row Anchor Ethibond coupled with polyester sutures, USP No. 2; (2) Double-Row Anchor HiFi with polyblend polyethylene sutures, USP No. 2; (3) Single-Row Anchor Ethibond coupled with braided polyester sutures, USP No. 2; and (4) Single-Row Anchor HiFi with braided polyblend polyethylene sutures, USP No. 2. Arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches were placed (single-row) and combined with medial horizontal mattress stitches (double-row). All specimens were loaded to failure at a constant displacement rate on a material testing machine.

RESULTS

Group 4 showed lowest load-to-failure result with 155.7 +/- 31.1 N compared to group 1 (293.4 +/- 16.1 N) and group 2 (397.7 +/- 7.4 N) (P < 0.001). Stiffness was highest in group 2 (162 +/- 7.3 N/mm) and lowest in group 4 (84.4 +/- 19.9 mm) (P < 0.001). In group 4, the main cause of failure was due to the suture cutting through the tendon (n = 6), a failure case observed in only n = 1 specimen in group 2 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A double-row technique combined with arthroscopic Mason-Allen/horizontal mattress stitches provides high initial failure strength and may minimize the risk of the polyethylene sutures cutting through the tendon in rotator cuff repair when a single load force is used.

Comparative evaluation of the tendon-bone interface contact pressure in different single- versus double-row suture anchor repair techniques

The aim of the study was to evaluate the time zero contact pressure over a defined rotator cuff footprint using different repair and stitch techniques in an established sheep model. Forty fresh-frozen sheep shoulders were randomly assigned to five repair groups: single-row repair using simple stitches (SRA-s), single-row repair using horizontal mattress stitches (SRA-m), and single-row repair using arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches (SRA-ama). Double-row repair was either performed with a combination of simple and horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-sm) or with arthroscopic Mason-Allen/horizontal mattress stitches (DRA-amam). Investigations were performed using a pressure-sensitive film system. The average contact pressure and pressure pattern were measured for each group. Contact pressure was lowest in SRA-m followed by SRA-s. SRA-ama showed highest contact pressure of all single-row treatment groups (P < 0.05). DRA-amam presented the highest overall contact pressure (P < 0.05), whereas DRA-sm exerted contact pressure equal to that of SRA-ama. Both double-row techniques showed the most expanded pressure pattern. Average contact pressures for the more complex single- and double-row techniques utilizing arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches were greater than were those of the repair techniques utilizing simple and horizontal mattress stitches. However, the contact pattern between the anchors could be increased by using the double-row technique, resulting in more footprint coverage compared to patterns utilizing the single-row techniques. These results support the use of the more complex arthroscopic Mason-Allen stitches and may improve the environment for healing of the repaired rotator cuff tendon.