Double row repair: is it worth the hassle?

Increased acromiohumeral distance in a double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery compared to a single-row surgery after 12 months

Background

Arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery is an effective treatment for rotator cuff tears with the considered use of double-row repair techniques becoming popular in the last decade. We aim to compare the effects of double- and single-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs (ARCR) on repair integrity (RI) and acromiohumeral distance (AHD).

Methods

In this observational study, we retrospectively identified 98 patients with degenerative rotator cuff tear treated with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair between 2016 and 2019. We excluded 22 patients with partial-thickness tears, 15 with associated subscapularis or SLAP tears, 13 with massive tears, and 5 patients lost to follow-up; we included 43 patients who had ARCR for full-thickness cuff tear and clinical, radiologic follow-up. Of these 43 patients, 23 are grouped as double-row repair group (DRG) and 20 as single-row repair group (SRG). A minimum of 12 months after the surgery, bilateral shoulder MRIs were obtained. Contralateral shoulders without asymptomatic rotator cuff tears served as a control group (CG). The operating surgeon and two other surgeons experienced in arthroscopy blindly measured the AHD and determined the RI at the control MRIs in all groups. Functional assessments relied on UCLA and qDASH Scores.

Results

The mean age was 57.89 (45–78) years, and the mean follow-up time was 28,65 (21–43) months. The mean AHD of the CG was 9.7 ± 0.96 mm, the preoperative AHD of DRG was 8.62 ± 1.45 mm, and SRG was 9.71 ± 0.95 mm. The postoperative mean AHD of DRG 9.61 ± 1.83 mm and SRG was 10.21 ± 1.97 mm. AHD differences between the preoperative and postoperative groups were significant (P=0.009). The increase of the AHD in the double-row group was significantly higher than the single-row group (P=0.004). There was a high correlation between the RI and DASH scores (P=0.005). RI did not correlate with the repair method (P=0.580).

Conclusion

Although double-row repairs can maintain greater AHD than single-row repairs in the clinical setting, this difference did not affect functional results. Regardless of the surgical intervention, functional results are favourable if RI is achieved.

Level of evidence

Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study

The clinical and radiologic outcome of microfracture on arthroscopic repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tear

BACKGROUND

The persistent incidence of retear despite improvements in techniques led orthopedic surgeons to the application of principles of tissue bioengineering to achieve enhanced repair and functional outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiologic outcomes of arthroscopic single-row repair augmented with microfracture (SRM) at the greater tuberosity with single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) repair in the treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study. A total of 123 patients were enrolled for arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, with 40 patients treated by SR, 44 by SRM, and 39 by DR. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. The primary outcome was retear rate, which was detected by magnetic resonance imaging, and the secondary outcome was functional outcome.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 59.2 years, 58.1 years, and 60.6 years in the SR, SRM, and DR groups, respectively. The retear rate was 33%, 14%, and 36% in the SR, SRM, and DR groups, respectively (P = .045). The SRM group had significantly improved functional outcomes compared with the SR and DR groups in terms of the postoperative Constant score and visual analog scale score (P = .001 and .002, respectively). Delta Constant scores were nonsignificant for retear and intact tendons (P = .137).

CONCLUSION

SRM has a significantly lower retear rate and better functional outcome than SR and DR repair.

We are operating too much

With the increase of superspecialisation, there has been a recent trend for a rising number of operations for both trauma and orthopaedic ailments. This flies against the results of properly planned, well performed, adequately powered, with clinically relevant outcome measures and long enough follow-up level I studies which challenge the received wisdom that surgery is actually superior to conservative management or even supervised neglect. This editorial outlines some of these issues, and suggests that orthopaedic and trauma surgeons should actually think twice before operating on anything that comes our way.

Double-Row Repair Lowers the Retear Risk After Accelerated Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Recently, an accelerated rehabilitation protocol after rotator cuff (RC) repair has been proposed for patients at risk of postoperative stiffness.

PURPOSE

To investigate, in patients undergoing early accelerated mobilization, whether double-row (DR) repair provides better clinical outcomes and a lower retear rate compared with single-row (SR) configurations.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 58 patients were randomized to undergo either SR or DR repair. After 2 years of follow-up, 12 men and 13 women (mean age, 61.8 years; range, 52-67 years) in the SR group and 15 men and 10 women (mean age, 58.9 years; range, 51-69 years) in the DR group were evaluated. To assess the retear rate, magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder was performed at 2-year follow-up. The clinical evaluation was based on the modified University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score and range of motion (ROM) measurements.

RESULTS

Magnetic resonance arthrography showed a significantly lower full-thickness retear rate for the DR group than for the SR group (8% vs 24%, respectively; P < .05). Conversely, at both 6-month and 2-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of the rate of stiffness in the SR and DR groups (8% vs 12% and 0% vs 0%, respectively; P > .05). No clinical differences were recorded regarding the UCLA score (SR group: mean, 32.6 [range, 30-35]; DR group: mean, 33.3 [range, 29-35]; P = .61) and ROM.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients at a high risk of shoulder stiffness and therefore necessitating accelerated postoperative rehabilitation, DR repair of the RC could lower retear rates.

Single-versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in massive tears

Background

It is a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons to treat massive rotator cuff tears. The optimal management of massive rotator cuff tears remains controversial. Therefore, the goal of this study was to compare arthroscopic single- versus double-row rotator cuff repair with a larger sample size.

Material/Methods

Of the subjects with massive rotator cuff tears, 146 were treated using single-row repair, and 102 were treated using double-row repair. Pre- and postoperative functional outcomes and radiographic images were collected. The clinical outcomes were evaluated for a minimum of 2 years.

Results

No significant differences were shown between the groups in terms of functional outcomes. Regarding the integrity of the tendon, a lower rate of post-treatment retear was observed in patients who underwent double-row repair compared with single-row repair.

Conclusions

The results suggest that double-row repair is relatively superior in shoulder ROM and the strength of tendon compared with single-row repair. Future studies involving more patients in better-designed randomized controlled trials will be required.

Factors that impact rehabilitation strategies after rotator cuff repair

Multiple factors influence rehabilitation strategies after rotator cuff repair. These variables may also impact the overall success of the surgical intervention. Physicians and rehabilitation specialists should be aware of prognostic indicators that can provide therapeutic guidance and offer insights into eventual clinical outcomes. The success of surgical and rehabilitative interventions is often evaluated in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, return to activity, and pain. Although these factors are somewhat interdependent, each of them independently influences the final result. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the recent literature in this area to provide insight as to the short- and long-term outcomes that patients should expect based on their unique presentations. This article examines both intrinsic and extrinsic patient factors to help therapists develop customized rehabilitation programs that optimize surgical outcomes.

Single-row versus double-row repair of the distal Achilles tendon: a biomechanical comparison

Surgery for recalcitrant insertional Achilles tendinopathy often consists of partial or total release of the insertion site, debridement of the diseased portion of the tendon, calcaneal ostectomy, and reattachment of the Achilles to the calcaneus. Although single-row and double-row techniques exist for repair of the detached Achilles tendon, biomechanical data are lacking to support one technique over the other. Based on data extrapolated from the study of rotator cuff repairs, we hypothesized that a double-row construct would provide superior fixation strength over a single-row repair. Eighteen human cadaveric Achilles tendons (9 matched pairs) with attached calcanei were repaired with single-row or double-row techniques. Specimens were mounted in a servohydraulic materials testing machine, subjected to a preconditioning cycle, and loaded to failure. Failure was defined as suture breakage or pullout, midsubstance tendon rupture, or anchor pullout. Among the failures were 12 suture failures, 5 proximal-row anchor failures, and 1 distal-row anchor failure. No midsubstance tendon ruptures or testing apparatus failures were observed. There were no statistically significant differences in the peak load to failure between the single-row and double-row repairs (p = .46). Similarly, no significant differences were observed with regards to mean energy expenditure to failure (p = .069). The present study demonstrated no biomechanical advantages of the double-row repair over a single-row repair. Despite the lack of a clear biomechanical advantage, there may exist clinical advantages of a double-row repair, such as reduction in knot prominence and restoration of the Achilles footprint.

Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques because research has demonstrated the superiority of double-row repair from a biological and mechanical point of view but there is no evidence of clinical superiority.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic repair with suture anchors. They were randomised into two groups of 80 patients according to the repair technique: single-row (group 1) and double-row (group 2). Results were evaluated by use of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant questionnaires, the Shoulder Strength Index (SSI) and range of motion. Follow-up time was two years. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies were performed on each shoulder preoperatively and two years after repair.

RESULTS

One hundred per cent of the patients were followed up. All measurements showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative status. The UCLA score showed significant improvement in group 2. In over 30-mm tears UCLA and ASES showed significant differences. SSI showed significant improvement in group 2. Range of motion showed significant improvements in flexion and abduction in group 2. In under 30-mm tears group 2 showed also significant improvement in internal and external rotation. In MRI studies there were no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

At two years follow-up the double-row repair technique showed a significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair and this was even more significative in over 30-mm tears. No MRI differences were observed.