RESEARCH ARTICLE


Summary of Meta-Analyses Dealing with Single-Row versus Double-Row Repair Techniques for Rotator Cuff Tears



U.J. Spiegl1, *, S.A. Euler2, P.J. Millett3, P. Hepp1
1 Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, Germany
2 Department of Trauma Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria
3 The Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, USA


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 822
Abstract HTML Views: 499
PDF Downloads: 113
ePub Downloads: 89
Total Views/Downloads: 1523
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 391
Abstract HTML Views: 308
PDF Downloads: 91
ePub Downloads: 64
Total Views/Downloads: 854



© Spiegl et al.; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Plastic Surgery, University of Leipzig, 20 04103 Leipzig, Germany; Tel: 0341/97 17105; Fax: 0341/97 17399; E-mail: uli.spiegl@gmx.de


Abstract

Background:

Several meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials have been performed to analyze whether double-row (DR) rotator cuff repair (RCR) provides superior clinical outcomes and structural healing compared to single-row (SR) repair. The purpose of this study was to sum up the results of meta-analysis comparing SR and DR repair with respect on clinical outcomes and re-tear rates.

Methods:

A literature search was undertaken to identify all meta-analyses dealing with randomized controlled trials comparing clinical und structural outcomes after SR versus DR RCR.

Results:

Eight meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: two including Level I studies only, five including both Level I and Level II studies, and one including additional Level III studies. Four meta-analyses found no differences between SR and DR RCR for patient outcomes, whereas four favored DR RCR for tears greater than 3 cm. Two meta-analyses found no structural healing differences between SR and DR RCR, whereas six found DR repair to be superior for tears greater than 3 cm tears.

Conclusion:

No clinical differences are seen between single-row and double-row repair for small and medium rotator cuff tears after a short-term follow-up period with a higher re-tear rate following single-row repairs. There seems to be a trend to superior results with double-row repair in large to massive tear sizes.

Keywords: Double-row repair, large tear size, meta-analysis, rotator cuff tear, single-row repair, small tear size, structural healing.