A Majority of Single Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Comparisons Fail to Consider Modern Single-Row Techniques

Statistical Fragility of Single-Row Versus Double-Row Anchoring for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Background:

Comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often use the P (probability) value to convey the statistical significance of their findings. P values are an imperfect measure, however, and are vulnerable to a small number of outcome reversals to alter statistical significance. The inclusion of a fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may aid in the interpretation of a study’s statistical strength.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to examine the statistical stability of studies comparing single-row to double-row rotator cuff repair. It was hypothesized that the findings of these studies would be vulnerable to a small number of outcome event reversals, often fewer than the number of patients lost to follow-up.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

We analyzed comparative studies and RCTs on primary single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair that were published between 2000 and 2021 in 10 leading orthopaedic journals. Statistical significance was defined as a P < .05. The FI for each outcome was determined by the number of event reversals necessary to alter significance. The FQ was calculated by dividing the FI by the respective sample size.

Results:

Of 4896 studies screened, 22 comparative studies, 10 of which were RCTs, were ultimately included for analysis. A total of 74 outcomes were examined. Overall, the median FI was 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-3), and the median FQ was 0.035 (IQR, 0.020-0.057). The mean FI was 2.55 ± 1.29, and the mean FQ was 0.043 ± 0.027. In 64% of outcomes, the FI was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up.) Additionally, 81% of significant outcomes needed just a single outcome reversal to lose their significance.

Conclusion:

Over half of the studies currently used to guide clinical practice have a number of patients lost to follow-up greater than their FI. The results of these studies should be interpreted within the context of these limitations. Future analyses may benefit from the inclusion of the FI and the FQ in their statistical analyses.

Editorial Commentary: Biology and Biomechanics Must Be Carefully Balanced for a Durable Rotator Cuff Repair

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair strategies have evolved over 3 decades, but suture anchor design, anchor configuration, and stitches have been largely driven by repair biomechanics. In recent years there has been a shift toward repair strategies that enhance the biology of tendon repair. Double-row and transosseous equivalent suture anchor repair constructs demonstrate excellent time zero mechanical properties, but the resulting increased repair tension and tendon compression may compromise tendon healing. Modern single-row repairs employing medialized triple-loaded suture anchors, simple stitches, and lateral marrow venting avoid some of the problems associated with double-row repairs and demonstrate excellent short-term healing and clinical results. The most robust repair fails if the tendon does not heal. Biology and biomechanics must be carefully balanced.