Functional and structural outcome after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: single-row versus dual-row fixation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the functional as well as the structural outcomes of single-row and dual-row fixation after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 80 shoulders in 78 patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears was evaluated using the rating scale of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and the shoulder index of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) at an average of 35 months (range, 24 to 60 months) after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Thirty-nine shoulders were repaired using the single-row technique and 41 shoulders using the dual-row technique. Postoperative cuff integrity was determined through magnetic resonance imaging and was classified into 5 categories: type I, sufficient thickness with homogenously low intensity; type II, sufficient thickness with partial high intensity; type III, insufficient thickness without discontinuity; type IV, presence of a minor discontinuity; type V, presence of a major discontinuity.

RESULTS

The average UCLA score improved significantly to 32.4 in the single-row and to 33.1 in the dual-row group. The ASES shoulder index improved significantly to 93.0 in the single-row group and to 94.6 in the dual-row group. However, there was no statistical difference between the groups in the postoperative scores. Postoperative MRI revealed 11 type I, 6 type II, 12 type III, 4 type IV, and 6 type V in the single-row group, and 22 type I, 8 type II, 7 type III, 4 type IV, and no type V in the dual-row group. A statistical difference was observed between the groups (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair yielded successful functional outcomes without significant difference between single and dual-row fixation techniques. However, dual-row repairs excelled in structural outcome over the single-row technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.